Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION SUPPLY

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will seek to make an official visit to the European Launcher Development Organisation headquarters in Paris.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I have no present plans to visit the E.L.D.O. Headquarters in Paris.

Mr. Dalyell: What constructive proposals do the Government have as a reaction to the Americans' offer of the post-Apollo programme, particularly in relation to Phase C?

Mr. Corfield: There is a team in the United States, in which the United Kingdom is taking part, to study the availability of launchers. The other matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Concorde

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde supersonic airliner.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde flight test development programme.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde aircraft.

Mr. Corfield: The two Concorde prototypes have now completed nearly 400 hours of flight testing, including tests at Concorde's cruising speed of twice the speed of sound. The results of these tests are now being assessed. About £500 million has been spent on development so far.

Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, bearing in mind that the Concorde is powered with Rolls-Royce engines, its commercial future has been gravely prejudiced by the Government's reluctance to renegotiate the contract to supply the Rolls-Royce engines for the Lockheed TriStar, and also by the disgraceful way in which the right hon. Gentleman himself knocked Rolls-Royce engines in his speech on Monday?

Mr. Corfield: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's proposition. It is thoroughly mischievous to suggest that this will happen. I am confident that the American airlines will judge Concorde on its commercial aspects. With regard to the other matter, if hon. Gentlemen will re-read the context in which I made the remark that the engine was behind, they will realise that it applied solely to time. They know that delay has destroyed the best technical advances, such as Comet, but if they like to make political capital out of a grave national disaster like this, it is up to them. I propose to give the House as honest an assessment as I can of what I believe are the prospects.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, so far from the commercial prospects being prejudiced, the flight test development so far has given the British aircraft industry every indication that it has a product which it can sell to the airlines? There have been 60 hours of supersonic speeds and six to eight hours at more than Mach 2.

Mr. Corfield: I agree that the flight tests have proved very satisfactory, and


certainly the French reactions to the Rolls-Royce engine in no way confirm the fears expressed from the other side of the House.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest concern would be caused if the aircraft were to continue in production with insufficient orders, allowing it to trickle on neither making a profit nor producing enough to offset the money spent on it? Leaving aside the money already spent, what estimate has the Minister made of the numbers of aircraft required to be sold to break even?

Mr. Corfield: I have explained to the House and to the hon. Gentleman in particular on a number of occasions that I am having a complete review with my French colleague in March to study the commercial prospects. It is on that review and the prospects that the future depends. As for the number, the answer is approximately 100.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, in addition to his remarks about Concorde, its sales prospects will not be determined by whether or not the Americans or anyone else think that we are nice chaps, but by the speed with which B.O.A.C. and Air France place orders for the aeroplane? Will he continue to do all he can to encourage those companies to convert their interest into a firm order for Concorde?

Mr. Corfield: Of course, the attitude of B.O.A.C. and Air France is very important.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware, with reference to the point he made in answer to the first supplementary question, that it was not only his attack upon the RB211 but his slighting reference to the 1011 compared with its competitor in the United States that has caused grave damage and made the position worse. Does he agree, too, that the credibility of Rolls-Royce has been affected and prejudiced by the decision on the RB211 and that this may affect Concorde? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make political representations at the highest level in New York State and in Washington on the noise question, which could be the decisive issue in the end?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I made no damaging remarks about the Lockheed 1011, except to indicate that the DC10 was clearly getting more orders.
I am in very close touch on the matter of the noise level, and I saw Lord Cromer about the noise problem before he left.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the reduction of lateral noise and smoke pollution in Concorde.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price): It is a design objective of the Concorde programme that its engine noise on entry into service should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jet aircraft. Smoke emission is expected to be generally less than that of current large jet aircraft.

Mr. Huckfield: Will not even newer versions of current subsonic aeroplanes have to reduce their noise levels under the new regulations? Will Concorde be able to meet the new regulations?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman is right about subsonic aircraft, but he knows that no regulations for supersonic aircraft have yet been proposed. Discussions have been proceeding.

Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the State Assembly of New York is now having hearings through its Health Committee? Will the Government submit evidence to the committee and send a senior official or a Minister to try to satisfy the committee on the noise aspects of Concorde's operations?

Mr. Price: I should like to think about the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what recent discussions his Department has had with airport authorities in the United States of America concerning the operation of Concorde into and out of United States airports.

Mr. David Price: This question was most recently discussed between British and French officials and the Port of New York Authority at the end of October


last year. We are continuing to keep in close touch with developments in this field.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the evidence which I submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry about discussions held with the City of New York authorities some six months ago on this whole question and what the attitude of the City of New York would be towards the Concorde? Will he take most seriously the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on an earlier Question about the need to involve ourselves as soon as possible in direct discussions with the New York authorities on the whole question of Concorde and noise levels?

Mr. Price: Yes, Sir; I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Assemblyman Stein, evidently a key figure in the New York Assembly, will arrive here this week? Will he arrange for Mr. Stein to visit Farnborough so that the presentation on noise suppression which can be given is given to him and, through him, made available to the State Assembly?

Mr. Price: We are thinking along those lines. Perhaps I might have a word with the right hon. Gentleman after Questions.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of his Department's activities with those of the French Government regarding the development of the Concorde programme.

Mr. Corfield: The development and production of Concorde is a joint programme, and there is very close coordination, at every level, between the work of my Department and that of the French authorities.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but, again on the question of negotiations and discussions with the Americans, will he ensure that we are in a much stronger position by being associated with the French Government than we should be if we were on our own, and will he, please, ensure that the British and French Governments jointly leave the American Government in no doubt that neither of our Governments would be prepared to tolerate bogus environment

arguments put up to prevent Concorde from landing at United States airports?

Mr. Corfield: These are matters for very serious consideration, but I do not think that we can dictate to the United States what we are prepared to tolerate.

Mr. Benn: But when Lord Carrington visits the United States to discuss with the Government the Rolls-Royce position, will he also raise with Mr. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, and other Ministers the political importance to this country of not having Concorde endangered by a decision on environmental grounds?

Mr. Corfield: I have no doubt that Mr. Volpe is fully seized of these considerations, but I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. and noble Friend.

Harrier VTOL Aircraft

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the development and sales of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft and if he will indicate what arrangements are being made for its manufacture and sale with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation of the United States of America.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the supply of Harrier aircraft to the United States Marine Corps.

Mr. Corfield: Development of the aircraft as an operational weapons system is now substantially completed. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 30 aircraft for delivery in 1971 and 1972 and has authorised orders for long-dated materials for a further 30 aircraft for delivery in 1973. Other countries are showing considerable interest. Hawker Siddeley Aviation has negotiated with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the manufacture of Harriers in the U.S.A. but the 30 aircraft so far ordered are being produced in this country.

Mr. Cronin: Although, obviously, there are some advantages in using the commercial sales organisation and other facilities in McDonnell Douglas, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can


to ensure that the Harriers are manufactured as far as possible by a British company?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that this is a question for the decision of the American Government. It is, clearly, preferable to us that the Harriers should be manufactured in this country.

Mr. Wall: To what extent are future major orders tied up with manufacture in the United States? Do we expect to make any sales to the United States Navy as opposed to the Marine Corps?

Mr. Corfield: At the moment there is no tie-up as my hon. Friend suggests. I expect that if the United States Navy or Army reproduces these orders, the United States Government will wish to consider their attitude towards manufacture in the United States.

Mr. McMaster: What pressure is my right hon. Friend bringing to bear on the Royal Navy to order versions of the Harrier for use by the Royal Navy with its carriers?

Mr. Corfield: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Engine Noise (Research)

Mr. Rost: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how much Government expenditure has been incurred in each of the past three years to help finance research into the development of quieter jet engines; and whether he will make a policy statement.

Mr. David Price: Research into engine noise in the years 1967–68, 1968–69 and 1969–70 has cost £338,000, £523,800 and £857,000 respectively. But other work on aircraft noise reduction brings the totals up to higher figures, and there has also been some private expenditure by the manufacturers.

Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend agree that the research work which has been undertaken by Rolls-Royce on its own account in recent years has been considerable, and that, as a result of this work, it has achieved a world lead in the development of quieter engines, and, in particular, that the RB211 has produced a

major technical breakthrough in this regard? Will this be considered in the renegotiation?

Mr. Price: Most certainly. On the general point, most of this work has been done at Pyestock but quite a lot has been on contracts from the Department to Rolls-Royce.

Jaguar Aircraft

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Jaguar flight test development programme.

Mr. David Price: Seven prototypes of the aircraft have flown, and the eighth is due to fly this summer. Despite the loss of EO1, progress is well up to expectation.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that progress is more than up to expectation in terms of payload range and that in terms of utilisation of prototypes the rate of flying has been exceptional? This is a product powered by Rolls-Royce engines and manufactured by British and French industry in which we can all justly take pride.

Mr. Price: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting, too, that the development costs of the Jaguar programme have been held very close to the original estimates.

Rolls-Royce Limited

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to receive the report of the accountants investigating the financial position of Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Corfield: To a large extent, this has been overtaken by events, but in the Government's assessment of the position, Messrs. Cooper Bros' preliminary assessment was, of course, of considerable assistance.

Mr. Sheldon: In the Minister's reply to my intervention on Monday, he was courteous enough to say that the reason why he did not intervene in the negotiations with Lockheed was that there might be a contravention of Section 332 of the Companies Act. Is the Minister seriously saying that the reason why he did not try


to renegotiate the Lockheed contract and so save the firm of Rolls-Royce in a compromise settlement was that it might be interpreted as a contravention of Section 332—as an attempt to defraud the creditors of Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Corfield: There is no question of defrauding the creditors. As I sought to explain before, the situation was that the time was excessively short because the Rolls-Royce decision was made when it was, as I think I put it, right up against it from the point of view of meeting its liabilities. Within that time, we did our best, and we got in touch with the United States Government and with Lockheed.

Dr. Gilbert: Can the Minister say anything about the position of the unsecured creditors of Rolls-Royce, particularly the sub-contractors and suppliers? Will they be left in the same position as Lockheed? Or, if not, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose under our bankruptcy laws to arrange to discriminate in favour of unsecured creditors of United Kingdom domicile and Lockheed? If the sub-contractors go there is no point in trying to save Rolls-Royce itself, as I am sure the Minister agrees.

Mr. Corfield: These are matters for the Receiver.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether the independent accountants who are currently investigating the affairs of the Rolls-Royce Company Limited at the request of Her Majesty's Government will be authorised to investigate the fulfilment of their obligations to minority shareholders by the management of this company between June, 1968 and November, 1970, with particular reference to their obligations under Section 165(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1948; and whether the accountants will be authorised to publish reports on such matters if they so desire.

Mr. Corfield: I think this matter is now best left to the inquiry under the Companies Act that the Board of Rolls-Royce has proposed. The report will be published.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the company's announcement that it

is to call for the appointment of inspectors. In view of the vital importance of the RB211 in destroying the value of investors' shareholdings in this company and the extent of the involvement of the Ministry of Technology and the I.R.C. in that contract, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inspectors will be empowered to investigate not only the conduct of the board towards its shareholders but also the extent to which that conduct may or may not have been influenced by the Ministry of Technology or the I.R.C.?

Mr. Corfield: As I understand it, the powers of the inspectors under the Act are very wide indeed, certainly wide enough to cover all the matters my hon. Friend has in mind, and wide enough for them to go in as much detail as they regard as necessary into any one aspect.

Mr. Molloy: Would the Minister be prepared new, with the benefit of Monday's debate, to make a recommendation to his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Bill which is to be debated tomorrow should be amended so that full public ownership of Rolls-Royce should take place?

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the position of the suppliers for the RB211 and other existing engines? Their position is absolutely crucial, as I am sure my right hon. Friend realises, and they would be very grateful if any indication of the Government's attitude could be given as soon as possible.

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the anxieties, but I am not in any position to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Department had any official approach from Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and T.W.A. about continuing the RB211 as mentioned in this morning's Press?

Mr. Corfield: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what financial assistance his Department is giving to Rolls-Royce in the development of vertical lift engines.

Mr. David Price: The Department has supported the RB162 lift engine, to which the French and German Governments also contributed. In addition, the XJ99 experimental military engine was developed in conjunction with the Americans.
Other projects are under consideration.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May we have an assurance that the Government will now put even more priority behind this research, in view of the importance of these engines to virtually every Western European vertical take-off project and because of their importance for recouping the finances of Rolls-Royce? Further, will my hon. Friend give particular support to the carbon fibre industry since the carbon fibre blades are crucial to these engines?

Mr. Price: I had the honour last week of opening the first International Carbon Fibre Conference, when I said that Her Majesty's Government were giving substantial support across the board to the development of carbon fibres. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his phraseology? He said that the Government had supported the RB162. Will he now say that the Government will continue to support the RB162?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman knows that we shall be discussing all this tomorrow.

Mr. William Rodgers: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why the contracted details of the agreement with Rolls-Royce (Bristol Engine Division) for the further development of the Olympus 593 engine are confidential.

Mr. Corfield: The negotiation of commercial contracts is conducted in confidence between the parties concerned, and it would not, therefore, be proper for the details of these contracts to be given.

Mr. Rodgers: That is a totally unsatisfactory reply, because it says precisely nothing. Surely one of the lessons out of the many emerging from the unhappy story of the RB211 is that more information should be freely available, particularly

to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts?

Mr. Corfield: The answer says almost exactly what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said on 7th March, 1968. I appreciate that saying nothing is more characteristic of him than of me, but that is the case.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what undertakings were sought from the President of the United States of America on Tuesday, 2nd February, or Wednesday, 3rd February, relating to a joint effort by the British and American Governments to save the RB211 project and the Lockheed Tristar; and what answer was received.

Mr. Corfield: No undertakings were sought or given on either side. Both Governments agreed that the firms should discuss the problem first.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply, like his speech on Monday, will be received with dismay in the Derby area? Why were no satisfactory undertakings sought from the American Administration or the Lockheed Corporation immediately Lord Cole told the Government on 26th January what the Rolls-Royce position was?

Mr. Corfield: It was a question not of seeking undertakings at once but of putting those people in the picture and giving them some time to consider the situation. That is now going on.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the Minister's view, is the project worth saving?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I think it is.

Mr. Barnett: As the Minister presumably would wish to do something to restore some of the lost reputation of Britain, would he at least give the House an assurance that he has not ruled out the possibility of avoiding a liquidation by one of the several options still open?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I can give that assurance.

Mr. Jay: Did the Government approach the American authorities to try to find a satisfactory solution before agreeing to the appointment of a Receiver?

Mr. Corfield: It was not a question of the Government's agreeing. I am sure


that the right hon. Gentleman knows, as an ex-President of the Board of Trade, that this is a matter where the law takes its course. We were left with a very small amount of time, and we did our best to make the maximum use of it.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is his estimate of the total number of redundancies directly involved in the immediate cessation of work on the RB211 engine by Rolls-Royce Ltd.

Mr. Corfield: There would be very substantial redundancies. But I do not think that I should anticipate the decision on the RB211 nor the outcome of discussions between the Receiver, the staff and the unions.

Mr. Whitehead: Is not the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, telling the House that the number of redundancies consequent on the cancellation of the project was not calculated when the Government were doing their costing on the full effects of the cancellation? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be honest with the House on what the full effects and the numbers involved will be?

Mr. Corfield: Of course these things were taken into consideration, but the plain fact is that the discussions on whether the RB211 can continue are still going on.

Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many suppliers and subcontractors in the Derby area face bankruptcy, and that the redundancies will be considerably increased unless we can have an assurance that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this very serious situation?

Mr. Corfield: Of course I am aware of the problem. but I cannot add to what I have said in answer to a previous Question; namely, that the matter is in the hands of the Receiver.

Mr. William Rodgers: In view of the danger of redundancies because of the continuing uncertainties about the whole future of the company, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the Receiver said yesterday, that those who might wish to continue commercial relations with Rolls-Royce for supplies other than for the RB211 may do so certain in

the knowledge that they will not commit themselves to further liabilities?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that it is for me to confirm or otherwise the Receiver's instructions.

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. William Rodgers: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the multi-rôle combat aircraft development programme; and if he will make a statement on the anticipated total of research and development costs.

Mr. Corfield: As I stated in reply to a similar Question on 20th January, the first major phase of development is now under way on a tripartite basis. I have nothing to add to the Minister of State for Defence's Statement on 22nd July, 1970, concerning the research and development costs.—[Vol. 809, c. 1050. Vol. 804, c. 555–8.]

Mr. Rodgers: The House will be glad to know that progress is being made and that importance is attached to this programme, but does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that a year ago he was pressing strongly for full publication of the costs involved in the programme, including the United Kingdom's share? Has he now changed his mind about publication, or, if not, can he give the House the figures?

Mr. Corfield: The figure which was given is £250 million for the first phase, up to the first check point. I have no wish to hide anything, but I do not think that I can go further at this point. At present, the first stage is looking ahead to see what happens at the next stage.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether design and management responsibility in the multi-rôle combat aircraft project is in direct relationship to the participating Government's financial investment.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend deny a rumour that the West Germans are providing quite a large stake of the share which the Italians are purporting to put up in their 15 per cent. shareholding? If that be true, does it


not give the West Germans a leading position in the consortium, with all the attendant benefits?

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir; there is no question of the West Germans procuring for themselves a leading position by a device of that sort.

Short SC1 VTOL Aircraft

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what evaluation studies are being undertaken of the Short SC1 vertical take-off and landing aircraft; what results have been obtained; and if he will make a statement on future plans for this aircraft.

Mr. David Price: It has never been the intention to develop the SC1 for operational use, but the fundamental knowledge gained from the research programme has contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the evaluation, design and operation of both military and vicil V/STOL aircraft. A two-year research programme has recently begun on flight control systems which ease the pilot's task. It is too early to report on results. No decision has been taken on work beyond this programme.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the great interest shown in this country in VTOL and the importance of the multijet as opposed to the deflector jet for vertical take-off, will my hon. Friend consider making use of the know-how which we have gained in this pioneering work over the past 10 years by formulating a requirement for another more advanced aircraft of this type?

Mr. Price: I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. As he knows, these aircraft were originally delivered in 1961 as experimental aircraft. But he is entirely right in suggesting that a lot of the knowledge gained has already been incorporated in such aircraft as the Harrier.

United States Aircraft and Aeroengines

Mr. Bishop: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the value of British imports of United States aircraft and aerospace products in the past year, compared with British exports to the United States of America in the same

period; and what further action he proposes to increase British exports.

Mr. David Price: Imports of aircraft, aero-engines and parts from the United States of America amounted to £86 million in 1970; the corresponding figure for exports was £49 million. We shall continue to give every assistance to British exporters that we can.

Mr. Bishop: Do not those figures show the confidence of the industry in the policies of the previous Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? Is not the conversion ratio of exports to imports higher for the British aircraft industry than for shipbuilding, vehicles and many other industries, and is there not an incentive here for continued pump-priming?

Mr. Price: That point is a matter of economic fact. On his first point, there is no room for vast satisfaction when the imports were double the exports.

Civil V/STOL Aircraft

Mr. Bishop: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the development of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what development of aero-engines specifically linked with civil short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft projects is at present being funded by his Department.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the expenditure incurred by him in design studies and development of vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing aircraft and engines, respectively, and in total during 1970; and what is his estimate of expenditure in this field during the current year and succeeding years.

Mr. David Price: I take these Questions to apply to civil projects. No expenditure was incurred on design studies or development of V/STOL projects, but the Department continued to support exploratory work. Future expenditure will depend upon the results of the studies now nearing completion


and the reappraisal which must follow the financial failure of Rolls-Royce Limited.

Mr. Bishop: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that more and more people are looking to a project of this kind for relief from air and surface traffic congestion, and can he assure us that work is going ahead on a number of problems, including air traffic congestion, noise and other social problems? Third, is he satisfied that the local authorities as well as the airport authorities are aware of the contribution which they can make in the advancement of these projects?

Mr. Price: I agree with a great deal of that. This is an important, though potentially expensive, development which could take many years. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, quite apart from the purely technical feasibility factors, we must be satisfied about the economics of the operation, about noise levels and about the potential market, as well as major planning considerations such as those to which he referred. This has been very much at the heart of the Southampton University exploratory studies.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Britain has the lead in this field. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done to neglect the lead which we now have, realising that 15 years from now we could well get rid of concrete runways and use vertical take-off?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we are doing extremely well in the exploratory work, but I do not think it is right to say that we have a unique lead in what we are really looking for, which is a commercial civil aircraft. It it in the military field that we are so distinguished.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the importance which an aircraft of this type could have in the development of the Scottish Highlands, which are tending to lose their land transport—for instance, their railways—and will he pay attention to that aspect of it?

Mr. Price: I have great sympathy with any interest which the hon. Gentleman expresses in the Highlands, but I am not sure that everyone in the Highlands and the Highlands Tourist Board would think that filling the glens with vertical take-off

aircraft would necessarily be in the interests of the environment and the aim of attracting more tourists to the Highlands.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress is being made with the capital reconstruction of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: The Rolls-Royce position has introduced a new factor which is being examined, but I confirm my reply on 20th January that reconstruction of the company is currently under consideration. I then promised to make a statement in due course, and I will do so as soon as possible.—[Vol. 809, c. 1048–49.]

Mr. McMaster: In view of the substantial loss of work which may result from the failure of Rolls-Royce and also the difficult employment situation in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to expedite the decision so that the company can press ahead with both engineering diversification and aviation research, design and production work to maintain employment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. However, I am not optimistic about engineering diversification, which has been tried in the past with not very much success.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Countryside Commission (Staff)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what increases have been authorised in the staff of the Countryside Commission during the last six months; and what increases are at present under consideration.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): One post has been added and three have been regraded. The Countryside Commission informed me that the matter which was concerning it most was the senior staff structure, and I am pleased to say that I have now reached agreement with the chairman on the senior staff structure.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst I welcome that statement to some extent, is the right hon.


Gentleman aware of the anxieties expressed in the last Report of the Commission and our general eagerness to encourage the Commission to get ahead with its very useful work?

Mr. Walker: I am very anxious to encourage the Commission in its work. I have now settled with its Chairman the matter which was most important to it.

Havering (Housing)

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply has been sent to the letter addressed to the Minister of Local Government and Development, on 15th December, 1970, by Mrs. B. Whitworth and others, requesting a local public inquiry into housing provision in the London borough of Havering.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Mrs. Whitworth's letter was received on 15th January, 1971. The reply has been delayed because of the Post Office strike, but my right hon. Friend is considering the matter urgently.

Mr. Leonard: I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the urgency of the matter, which has been pending for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman stated, particularly in view of the disastrous collapse of the house-building programme in the London Borough of Havering, the failure of the borough council to undertake a fully comprehensive survey of the housing needs of the borough, and its failure to make further provision to assist the overall housing problem of the metropolis as a whole.

Mr. Channon: I certainly cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman says. He is asking for an inquiry into these matters. My right hon. Friend has to make a decision on that application. The hon. Gentleman talks about delays. I agree that this has gone on far too long, but, unfortunately, the complainants indicated in September that they wished to comment further and it was not until January that we received a letter.

Countryside Commission (Third Report)

Mr. Maddan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to meet the criticisms

contained in paragraph 1.2 of the Third Report of the Countryside Commission.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is not for me to defend the record of the previous Government, but as far as I am concerned I will at all times take landscape and conservation aspects fully into account when proposals for development are before me.

Mr. Maddan: When doing that, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the areas now occupied by military establishments of one sort or another?

Mr. Walker: I am delighted that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to have a committee to look into all the establishments now owned by the Defence Department. I had the opportunity of nominating such distinguished people as the Chairman of the Countryside Commission to sit on that committee.

Mr. Denis Howell: Whilst it is quite true that it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to defend our record. is not it also true that on further mature consideration by him and his colleagues they have confirmed the original Chilterns route which their predecessors took?

Mr. Walker: It is true that one of the four points criticised in the Report is the Chilterns route, and that we confirmed our support of the original route taken. I am glad that we have now obtained the conversion of the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a distinguished landscape artist, to support our original view.

Countryside Commission (Functions and Finance)

Mr. Fidler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake discussions with the Countryside Commission with a view to redefining its functions and the financial resources which can be made available to it at the present time.

Mr. Peter Walker: Discussion with the Commission on its work programme and the financial resources available to it is a continuing process.

Mr. Fidler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please take into account the introduction to


the Commission's Report for 1969–70 and bear in mind that hon. Members on this side, and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite, were most anxious to see more help given to maintain and restore our national heritage in an increasingly commercially-dominated age?

Mr. Walker: Nine of the 12 months concerned were in no way my responsibility, but I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that adequate resources of both revenue and capital will be available to the Commission so that the recreational aspects of its functions can be properly expanded?

Mr. Walker: Certainly, the Countryside Commission will have better resources than under the previous Government.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the operation of improvement grants, and take steps to ensure that they are applied to achieve the most effective use of resources.

Mr. Channon: House improvements are an integral part of the Government's housing policy, and we are keeping the operation of the grants scheme under constant review.

Mr. Kinsley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This is a most wonderful scheme which is doing a tremendous job throughout the country. Will he now consider extending it to the pre-1939 houses which have bathrooms and hot water but are beginning to show signs of deterioration and need of modernisation? This would further help conserve our stock of houses which we want to keep.

Mr. Channon: Both sides of the House strongly support this policy. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right in saying that the operation of the discretionary grant scheme for older houses would be of tremendous importance. I am delighted that Birmingham's house improvement month begins next week.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the hon. Gentleman further consider extending the

house improvement grant to cover electrical re-wiring of houses? This is frequently the most expensive item in house improvement and its neglect is often the cause of tire damage.

Mr. Channon: I am willing to consider any suggestion for the improvement of the scheme, which is heartily supported by all people of good will.

Mr. Freeson: The 1969 Act already covers this need, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are not necessarily pursuing their powers in this respect as they should be? Is it not, therefore, most important in this connection, and in connection with general operations under the policy, that the manual which was in preparation under the last Government should be published as soon as possible and that advice should be issued specifically to local authorities pointing out that the Act was not intended to replace slum clearance programmes, as many authorities are now using it, or abusing it, in so doing?

Mr. Chanson: I have no evidence that any local authorities are abusing the Act, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he has evidence I shall be delighted to look at it. I share the view he expressed in the earlier part of his supplementary question. I will look into the point about the manual. We are continually considering what further advice we should give local authorities about this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Specialised and Technical Press (Lobby List)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for an increase in the number of lobby tickets available to the specialised and technical Press.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply I gave him on 20th January. This is not a matter for Ministerial decision.—[Vol. 809, c.281–2].

Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for good reason or for bad, admission to the membership of


the Lobby of the House of Commons is a far more exclusive matter than entry to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at St. Andrews? Could he let us into the secret of the basis on which this mysterious decision is made?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no responsibility for admission either to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club or to the Lobby of the House of Commons.

Refreshment Department

Mr. John Wells: asked the Lord President of the Council why no English apples, and in particular Cox's Orange Pippins, have been available in the Member's dining room, cafeteria or tea room in the second or third weeks of January, in view of their quality and price at this time of year.

Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
Of all apples supplied in January, over 50 per cent. have been English Cox's Orange Pippins. The remainder have been English Laxtons or French Golden Delicious. In order to prevent waste, only one cask of apples is opened at a time.

Mr. Wells: While I appreciate the care which my hon. Friend takes in keeping our apples fresh by opening only one box at a time—this explains the short-age—since the price now charged for apples represents a 400 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the grower, or even a 100 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the retailer, might he not always buy a small supply daily from retailers of Cox's, make 100 per cent. profit and give us fresh Cox's every day?

Dr. Bennett: I am beholden to my hon. Friend for this interesting and helpful commercial suggestion. I assure him that we had already made arrangements that, while the supply of English Cox's Orange Pippins lasted, we would continue to get them.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council why he has authorised the recent 12½ per cent. increase in prices in Members' eating places in the House.

Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
Prices in Members' eating places in the House have had to be increased in order to meet the rise in the cost of supplies and the increases in pay of the staff of the Department, which were granted to them in December last.

Mrs. Short: I thank the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee for that reply. Does he not think that there have been many increases during the past year? When he wants to put up prices, should he not consult hon. Members, and certainly give them notice, which he did not do? Ought he not to give more attention to the whole subject of feeding in the House of Commons so as to improve standards?

Dr. Bennett: The last increase in the price of meals and the like served to hon. Members was more than a year ago, in January, 1970, if my records are correct. I owe the House an apology in that we did not promulgate these increases, which were agreed by the sub-committee without dissension. It was my view that we should see the prices on the menus and price lists in good time, but I gather that this was not the case. Clearly, we should have asked the Whips to circulate an announcement.
As for maintaining prices, we have to make each of the so-called eating places severally pay its own way individually. That is the only way to proceed.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve the quality and choice of dishes available to Members in the dining rooms, cafeterias and tea rooms in the House.

Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
It is my constant desire to improve the quality and choice of the dishes available to Members in the dining rooms, cafeterias and tea rooms in the House, but at the same time I am trying to keep the cost of food to a minimum. The greater the choice the more risk there is of waste and, therefore, an increase in costs.

Mrs. Short: The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee has been singularly unsuccessful in both his aims. Is he not aware that the standard of food has


decreased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and has deteriorated to the same extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—hon. Members opposite never eat in the House of Commons—as prices have increased? Will the hon. Gentleman spend some time in the Members' tea rooms and the cafeterias where many Opposition Members eat and where they have to eat when they are kept at the House of Commons for many hours during the day and night? Will he see whether some new ideas, such as those already put before the Committee, can be introduced in order to increase the variety?

Dr. Bennett: My experience in these matters hitherto was somewhat limited until I found myself in this appointment. I must assure the hon. Lady that I do not lack good advice, and I hope that I take most of it.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members who are sane think that my hon. Friend has made a great improvement in the food?

Hon. Members: What do you think?

Dame Irene Ward: Is he also aware that the House as a whole would like my hon. Friend to convey to the staff our appreciation of the way that they have tried to help us? If nobody else will say it, I say that the Labour Government did not make much of a show when they chose the wrong Chairman.

Dr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, without any reference to my previous qualifications. I am glad to have the opportunity of passing on to the staff the thanks of the House for their performance during these all night sittings. I had occasion to do so a week or so ago.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee explain why it is that, although it has no costs for heat, rent, rates, light, furnishings, cleaning or anything of that description, which form part of the heavy overheads of any private concern—accepting that wages should go up—that it is still possible to go across the road and to get food cheaper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Chairman follow my example and stop eating here?

Dr. Bennett: I will try.

Hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone

Mr. Rose: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, whose imprisonment was notified to the House on 22nd January.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Rose: I am sure that the House will join me in deploring any violence in Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter it may come. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) was sentenced in his absence for an offence which did not involve violence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a matter of concern to the House to know the circumstances in which this took place and the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman now finds himself?

Mr. Whitelaw: The position is, naturally, a matter of concern to the House, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The question of imprisonment was dealt with in the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges.

Security

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in recent months in improving security in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Whitelaw: Following a report from the Security Co-ordinator, a number of steps have been taken to improve security precautions in the House, and the Services Committee has further measures under urgent consideration.

Mr. Hamilton: Have all those hon. Members, whether Government Ministers or back benchers, who have access to or are in possession of papers of a confidential nature accommodation which they can lock?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will look into that point, which the hon. Gentleman has properly put to me. But I think he would


agree that it would be unwise for me in general terms to go into details of the measures which have been taken.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What examination has been made of the possibility of installing equipment of an anti-hijacking type at the entrance to the Strangers' Gallery, representations about which have been made to the right hon. Gentleman by a firm in my constituency?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to go beyond the terms of my original answer.

Sir R. Thompson: In trying to balance the requirements of better security and the proper functioning of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most hon. Members would rather accept some degree of personal risk than see this place turned into a fortress difficult of access to our constituents?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I have much sympathy with it. I do not think that there is any question of trying to turn the House into a fortress of any kind.

Members' Interests

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to refer to the Committee of Procedure a proposal to amend the standing orders to prevent Members from voting on matters with which they have a personal or vested interest, in a way similar to that in operation in local government so far as borough councillors are concerned.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. These matters were very thoroughly considered last Session by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which recommended the continuance of our present practice in this respect.

Mr. Lewis: It may have been very well considered by the Committee, but the House has never really given it consideration. Is it not strange that borough councillors should be more strictly controlled than Members of the House of Commons? If borough councillors are so strictly controlled, should we not set a good example by at least having the same sort of system as they are subject to?

Mr. Whitelaw: The problems which arose from the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests were carefully considered. In general terms what it proposed has much to commend it. I have always believed that to have put general resolutions would have raised considerable problems, as is widely accepted. I believe that we are right to proceed on the present basis.

Mr. Tebbit: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might have cut down a great deal of debate on the Industrial Relations Bill had hon. Members opposite been to inhibited in this matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I would be wise not to follow too far in that direction in present circumstances.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet outside the House about the number of hon. Members, particularly on his side of the House, who have outside financial interests which should be made public? If he cannot accept the recommendations of the Select Committee, will he at least provide time for a debate on the Report?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his strictures on one side of the House or the other in this regard. Following the Report, there was very careful consideration of whether the resolutions proposed would be suitable or would, in certain circumstances, be very much more restrictive than would be wise. It was felt that they would be so restrictive. I will consider the question of a debate but I cannot promise time in the near future.

Parliamentary Delegations

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to initiate a system for election of delegates to the Council of Europe and other international organisations and conferences which delegates representing the British House of Commons, have to attend on similar lines to the Ballot for Private Members Bills and Motions.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: That is an amazing reply. One would not have expected the Lord President of the Council to give such a


reply. Is he aware that he has a reputation, as have most other hon. Members, for believing in extending democracy? Surely in the Council of Europe and everything connected with the E.E.C. we should show how democratic we are. A good way to start is by having a democratic system of electing those who are to go, instead of having the same old faces appointed by the Whips.

Mr. Whitelaw: The present procedures in this matter have been followed by successive Administrations of both parties, and I believe that they have provided widespread satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am told that they have not, of course we can reconsider them, but I believe that they are the best way to proceed. No one has a closed mind on the matter, however, and if some better procedures can be proposed, by all means let them be considered.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I do not want to be sent to Strasbourg, thus involving me in a kind of dichotomy of loyalties not dissimiliar from the situation yesterday and on earlier days when I was required to be in the Coal Industry Committee upstairs while the Industrial Relations Bill was being considered downstairs, thereby effectively preventing a proper concentration and debate in either place?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that there is any danger of my hon. Friend going to the Council of Europe unless he wants to. His movements in the House are a somewhat different matter and in the long run something which inevitably he determines for himself.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the minimum time which will elapse between the announcement of terms for joining the Common Market and the taking of a definitive vote in the House of Commons on the proposals.

Mr. Whitelaw: If the negotiations succeed and Parliament is invited to approve the Instrument of Accession, the Government will ensure that adequate time is allowed for consideration and discussion of the terms of the agreement.

Mr. Marten: I apologise for the slightly hypothetical nature of the Question. Would my right hon. Friend agree that we shall want about three months for discussion in the country and at least six weeks for probing in the House before we have a vote on this issue, if it should ever arise?

Mr. Whitelaw: At this stage, I could not state the exact period of time which may be required. It would, clearly, depend on many factors, but, of course, I will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for the vote to be taken on a day when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is detained in his constituency?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would certainly not be proper for me to enter into any such matters.

Television Annunciators

Mr. Costain: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for television annunciators to be placed in selected positions in the Chamber of the House of Commons, to indicate to visitors in the Strangers' Gallery who is speaking in the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will ask the Services Committee to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Costain: I am grateful for that answer. Would my right hon. Friend say when this can be installed for the benefit of the House?

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to what I think my hon. Friend asked, we will certainly look into the question, and if it proves technically feasible it may be for the general convenience of the House and for members of the Press Gallery, but it is a question of whether it is technically feasible.

Musical Recreation

Mr. Fry: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will provide facilities in the House of Commons for musical recreation.

Mr. Whitelaw: Judging from some recent performances here, it seems that existing facilities are adequate.

Mr. Fry: In view of the past and perhaps future choral performances of Her Majesty's Opposition, who are clearly in need of efficient leadership of all kinds, would my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he could not at least offer the Opposition some musical leadership and a better choice of music which would be more fitting to Westminster than the Kremlin?

Mr. Whitelaw: What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may sing in the Chamber and how they do it must be a matter for them and nobody else.

Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council why he has not yet moved for the appointment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; and if he will treat this as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern at the delay. The Committee will be set up as soon as possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Why has there been this delay in setting up this Committee? Is it not because the Government do not have enough Scottish Tory Members to man it? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if he puts zombies from the other place on the Committee, it will meet with violent opposition from Opposition Members?

Mr. Whitelaw: Any delays which there may have been have not been because there are not enough of my hon. Friends to serve on the Committee.

Division Lists

Mr. Ashton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to amend the procedure of the House so that the names of those Members who do not vote in Divisions can be recorded as well as the names of those who do.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: Would it not considerably help the Birmingham Post and Crossbencher in the Sunday Express to have

these figures instead of having to peruse the lists, and would it not be a great help to constituents to know the voting records of hon. Members?

Mr. Whitelaw: In practice, it might be difficult to distinguish the various reasons why from time to time various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not happen to be in a particular Division Lobby.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (WILBERFORCE REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Report of the Court of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Lord Wilberforce.
The Report of the Court of Inquiry chaired by Lord Wilberforce into the dispute in the electricity supply industry is being published this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. It makes three main recommendations.
First, the Court makes recommendations about rates of pay. For all industrial staff other than skilled workers, the Court recommends that the employers' offer of an increase of £2 a week should be accepted as fair and reasonable and should take effect from last September. This recommendation covers around two-thirds of all industrial staff. The Court recommends that this offer should be increased by £35 a year for skilled workers only and that some increase should be made in shift allowances. It also recommends that the employers' offer of one day's additional holiday should be increased to three days. The Court recommends that these improvements over and above the employers' offer should take effect only from 14th December when industrial action ceased.
Secondly, the Court recommends a speeding up in the introduction of the local incentive bonus schemes provided for under existing agreements dating from 1967. It considers these by far the best way of ensuring an efficient and well paid labour force, and believes that the present rate of progress is too slow and causes real dissatisfaction amongst unions and employees. As an incentive to both management and employees to make more rapid progress, the Court recommends a scheme of "lead-in" payments to operate


by 1st June for those groups of workers who are not by then covered by bonus schemes.
Such a group would be offered a "lead-in" bonus if a majority of employees in that group formally accepted by majority vote the introduction of a bonus scheme in principle, the carrying out of such work study and work measurement as would first be necessary and the need to run down the number of employees to the point where a bonus scheme could be introduced and bonuses earned. Thereafter each individual worker would be asked to sign a note of acceptance.
The "lead-in" payments so proposed would be 20s. a week increasing to 30s. a week in October, 1971 and to 40s. in January, 1972. They would however stop once a bonus scheme was introduced or such a scheme was rejected. The economies to be achieved are in the Court's view of such a scale that these payments should not add significantly to labour costs.
Thirdly, the Court found that the action of the unions in refusing to let the dispute go to arbitration was a breach of their agreement and the Court deplores this action. The Court also finds that the action taken during the work-to-rule was, in many areas, in breach of agreements, and that it was wrong for the union leaders to put the public at risk by a failure to issue more specific instructions to their members. The Court recommends that obligations and responsibilities should be clarified for the future.
In framing these recommendations, the Court considered in particular the productivity record of the industry, including the contribution the unions and the employees have made, and the bearing on the public and national economic interest. The Court says that it recognises that the country is at present in a dangerous condition of spiralling inflation; and that it should have regard to the dangers of giving this an extra twist. It concludes, however, that set against past and prospective performance in the electricity industry and the special factors relating to this case the settlement it recommends ought not to intensify inflationary pressures.
The employers estimated that their last offer would have increased average earnings by 9·7 per cent. On the same basis

the Court's recommendations would represent 10·9 per cent. in the year from September 1970. The total addition to the wage bill should, however, be substantially less than this with the continuing redaction in the labour force which the Court believes should be accelerated with the more rapid extension of bonus schemes. It is in this way that the Court believes that electricity workers can best—and justifiably—benefit from increased efficiency in the industry.
The Court makes it clear that its recommendations are related specifically to the circumstances and special factors in the electricity industry, particularly the contribution that the unions and employees have made and can increasingly make in improving productivity. There is therefore no question of the Court's recommendations being applicable in other industries in different situations. I must reaffirm—as the Court itself accepts—that if inflation is to be brought under control the general level of pay settlements must be reduced as rapidly as possible to a level much closer to the general rise in national productivity.
I have communicated the Report to the employers and unions concerned and I understand they will be discussing it together at an early date. I hope the recommendations in the report will provide an early settlement.

Mrs. Castle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his first consideration should be to try to bring peace to this industry by getting acceptance of this Report? That being so, will he not be more frank with the House and the country and admit, first, that the Court recognised that the workers concerned had a genuine grievance which was not being met by the electricity boards' offer; and, secondly, that the Court has therefore recommended substantial improvements which amount, in terms of an immediately operative improvement, to 12·6 per cent. taking into account shift payments, the additional payment for skilled workers and the additional holidays, and that, further, the lead-in payments which are to come into operation by next June at the latest will add another 2·8 per cent., making an average increase in earnings of 15½ per cent. in all, with further increases due in October and next January?


Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to correct the bowdlerised version of what he says the Court said about inflation, read to the House those passages in the Report pointing out that it is impossible to cure the inflationary problem by trying to lean on individual wage payments without taking into account the need to hold down price increases and stimulate growth?

Mr. Carr: I agree, and I should have hoped that the right hon. Lady would also agree, that it is the job of all of us to try to ensure that the Report of the Court of Inquiry leads to a settlement. I certainly agree with that. I do not think that the right hon. Lady's words contributed very much to that cause.
I was completely frank with the House. I underlined certainly once, and I am almost sure more than once—and if any hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see it confirmed—that the Court had stressed that the contribution of the unions and their members to productivity had been outstanding and that that was the only reason it was able to make the recommendation it made. That is quite clear.
Secondly, the figures which I quoted were the Court's own figures, and I have the authority of the Court to make that clear. It accepts the figures which I have given, and I do not for one moment accept the figures which the right hon. Lady has given. Her figures are not right. They are a most irresponsible contribution to the major overriding need of this country to bring inflation under better control. How they can be uttered by a right hon. Lady who left her Department with a White Paper saying that price increases should not—[Interruption].—wage increases should not exceed 4½ per cent., and with prices rising faster than they had risen for 20 years, passes all bounds of credibility—even the right hon. Lady's credibility on industrial relations.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the careful and balanced recommendations about which we have just heard, would not this be the moment to try again to persuade the Post Office workers, in their own interests and the interests of the nation, to go to arbitration?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And the lawyers.

Mr. Carr: I do not think that it would be wise for me or the House to get involved in another dispute today, but I hope that the House and everyone on both sides of all industries will read and pay great attention to what the Wilberforce Committee said about the failure of the unions in this case to honour their agreement regarding arbitration.

Mr. Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two other major claims in this industry before the electricity boards, namely, for the technical staff and the clerical staff. Are the Wilberforce Committee's recommendations intended to be a guide in the settlement of those claims?

Mr. Carr: I trust that the arguments used in this Report and the analysis on which they are based, which I believe are of a very high order, will be read, marked and taken into account by all other people. The vital thing in the Report is that the Committee underlines the special circumstances of the case into which it was looking and, therefore, the 10·9 per cent., on the same basis that the employers' offer was labelled as a 10 per cent. offer, is not held out by the Committee as, and should not be taken by anybody else to be, a norm of any kind, because it was justified only by the exceptional contribution of productivity in this industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend refer to page 48 of the Report which arrives at the conclusion that the settlement, which he has quantified at 10·9 per cent., would not result in an increase in "inflationary pressures"? Having regard to those words, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government's control over the tariffs of nationalised industries will preclude any possibility of an increase in electricity prices as a result of this award?

Mr. Carr: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend, the House and the country to the point made in the Report that if the productivity incentive bonus payments, as the Court prefers to call them, are widely implemented, it will be an example of how individual earnings can be increased without increasing costs. That is the essence of this Report, and


if that lesson is learned in every industry, including this industry, I think that my hon. Friend and the country will be highly satisfied about the effect on prices.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the additional cost to the industry of this award before the efficiency agreements come into force? Does he agree that the very fact that Lord Wilberforce and his colleagues have limited their Report to one industry shows that they see it as the Government's duty to establish some principles for regulating wages in the public sector and it cannot be left to a series of ad hoc inquiries into various industries? If the criterion is to be extra productivity, is it to apply to all nationalised and public services and, if so, how are some of them to achieve it because in some of them it is almost impossible to relate work to productivity?

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman has raised some fundamental points, but I would remind him and the House of two things.
I do not believe that that is the central message of the Wilberforce Report, although, quite properly, these matters are discussed in the Report. One of the central messages of the Report is that the Committee accepted the overall spiralling of inflation, which it said was dangerous, and it said that each and every claim and settlement must be judged in that context and that context must, therefore, affect each and every settlement. That is an immensely important thing for the Committee to have said, and it is immensely important for the future.
As to the wider points of the right hon. Gentleman's question, we have to differentiate here sharply between the world of theory and the real world of practice. In theory, when this Government came to power last June it took over an instrument for surveying all these things which, on paper, was a nice tidy-looking incomes policy under which increases should not have been outside the 2½ to 4½ per cent. range. In practice that policy was a "busted flush". It would have been quite pointless to have continued it.

Mr. Charles Morris: Has the Secretary of State seen the Press statement this morning attributed to the general secretary

of the Union of Post Office Workers indicating that the U.P.W.'s executive council will consider, against the background of the Wilberforce recommendations, whether to prolong the Post Office dispute or seek arbitration? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices and his powers of conciliation to examine the findings of the Wilberforce Committee to find whether this is a basis for leading both sides in the Post Office dispute back to the negotiating table?

Mr. Carr: I have said before, and repeat, that I believe arbitration is the way forward in the Post Office dispute. I will certainly use any good offices I have to that end.

Mr. Tapsell: If the rate of national production is rising at about 3 per cent. per year, is it not clear that an award of 10·9 per cent. is exceptionally generous? If it is to be regarded as a universal yardstick, would it not be a recipe for national disaster?

Mr. Carr: Yes, but the Court of Inquiry itself specifically underlines that this was an award in the particular circumstances of this industry and must not be used as a general national yardstick.

Mr. Loughlin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment the primary need is to get both sides of the industry to accept the decision of the Wilberforce Committee? Will he not also accept that any attempt to write down the award is likely to induce the unions not to accept the Committee's Report? Is it not true that the overall affect of the Report is to give to the trade union a 13·4 per cent. increase, and ought he not to emphasise that factor in the hope that we can get the unions to accept the Report so that there is no recurrence of the dispute?

Mr. Carr: I have not written down what the Report indicates. I repeat that the figure I gave is the figure which the Court itself had, and I have the Court's authority to say this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to try to get this accepted as a basis of settlement. The overall recommendation offers the opportunity to all the workers in that industry substantially to increase their earnings in return for increases in productivity which will not add to the overall


costs of the industry. That is the great opportunity this offers, and the whole purpose of the lead-in bonus payments which have been suggested—which are totally different from the old lieu bonuses with which all of us in industry have been familiar for so long—is to give a strong incentive both to management and employeees to move faster in the direction of these incentive bonus systems, which will give the individual and industry much higher earnings without increasing costs for the community.

Mrs. Castle: Could the Secretary of State, for the convenience of the House, give the paragraph number of the Report in which the Court gives the percentage figure that he has quoted to us? If it is not in the Report, why was it not in the Report? Why was it suddenly produced like a rabbit out of a hat for the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's argument? Is it not a fact that if the Court had wished to put a percentage figure in the Report itself it could and would have included one, but has not done so? Although it is true that the Report is merely dealing with a particular wage claim, it has general remarks to make about the way in which it cannot be expected that any group of workers will accept restraint in wage demands as long as there is no attempt to control prices or to hold out any hope of growth.

Mr. Carr: As for the percentage figure, it is correct that it is not in the Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is entirely up to the Committee to decide what it does or does not put into its Report. [Interruption]. I never said it was in the Report. The Committee believes that its argumentation stands on its own feet without the mention of percentages, and in the Committee's view percentages would be misleading. As a general method of calculation, it is difficult to decide how best to present the effect of any settlement in any industry. Anybody who likes to present the figure as a higher percentage cannot then claim that the employers' offer was 9·7 per cent.
What is incontrovertible and absolutely accepted by the Court, which is the figure it had before it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which paragraph?"] I did not write the Committee's Report for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I can only report

what is true, which is that 10·9 per cent. was the figure which the Committee had before it before signing the Report and which it accepted as being the effect of its recommendations. I have the Committee's authority to say this to the House. [Interruption.]
Since this is evidently regarded by the House as an important matter, perhaps I should indicate the basis of the calculation. The employers' offer was calculated to add £15·091 million to the annual wage bill as it stood at last September. The annual wage bill of the industry as at last September was £155·9 million. On that basis that offer represented an increase of 9·68 per cent., or 9·7 per cent. as I said to the House. The Committee's additional recommendations add £1·905 million to the employers' offer, making a total of £16·996 million, which is 10·9 per cent. of the last September wage bill of £155·9 million. This is the basis of calculation of the employers' offer and the comparable offer put forward by the Court and is therefore—[Interruption.] The two things are strictly comparable, but if the House wishes to judge what the Court has proposed by the same yardstick as it judged the employers' offer, the correct comparison is as between 10·9 per cent. and 9·7 per cent.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the use of cosmetics in presenting the Report this afternoon, may I ask whether he agrees, on the figures which he has just read out to the House, that the calculated figure which he gave earlier was based on an annual rate from September, 1970, the date which he quoted, and that, since a number of the Court's recommendations—only a small proportion of them—go back to September, 1970, but some take effect in December and some during this summer, the annual rate from now on, from the date of publication of the Report, is as was stated by my right hon. Friend earlier? If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that calculation, may I ask him to present the figures to the House in a White Paper, or in some other way, so that we can do our own calculations without the benefit of cosmetics?
Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman made this very moving plea, which really impressed some of us—[Interruption]. certainly—when he was arguing


that it was very misleading to use percentages in these cases, will he say why three of his right hon. Friends, at a most difficult point in the electricity dispute, laid down a figure, expressed in a percentage, which should not be exceeded? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this up with his right hon. Friends and draw to their attention the benefit of using words such as those he has used this afternoon?

Mr. Carr: I think that before the right hon. Gentleman criticises the use of percentages, he must accept—[Interruption.]—two things. First, from his own and his right hon. Friend's experience, the right hon. Gentleman must know that it is very difficult to know what is the best and most accurate way of putting these matters forward. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must know that, despite these difficulties, the Labour Government consistently used percentages as the basis of their criteria, that their criteria for 1970 was between 2½ and 4½ per cent., and that we are here dealing with something of the order of 10 per cent., which is a long way above that.

Hon. Members: Now answer the question.

Mr. Carr: On the specific question which the right hon. Gentleman raised, I said in my statement that this represented a 10·9 per cent. addition in the year from September. The wage year in this industry runs from September to September. Therefore, this is a perfectly fair and normal thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman and the House want to know what the annual rate is, I shall certainly tell them. It is not what the right hon. Lady said. It is 11·3 per cent.—[HON. Members: "Oh."]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 26th FEBRUARY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Phillip Whitehead.
Mr. David Crouch.
Mr. Neil Marten.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[SIXTH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th February.]

Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 57

TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

4.4 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I beg to move Amendment No.747, in page 45, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and add:
() In this Act, 'trade union' means an organisation (whether permanent or temporary) which either

(a) consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers' asociations, or
(b) consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions specified in the preceding paragraph (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions) or consists wholly or mainly of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations, and in either case is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers' associations or include the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations, and
(c) is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or of one or more employers' associations.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 791, in page 44, line 38, after second 'employers', insert:
'and is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or one or more employers' associations'.
Amendment No.792, in page 45, line 10, at end insert:
'and is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or one or more employers' associations'.
Amendment No.763, in Clause 61, page 46, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert 'trade union'.


And Amendment No.768, in Clause 63, page 49, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Before the debate begins on what I understand is the question of the General Register, may I take it that anything will be in order in the debate in so far as the Register impinges on everything in the Bill?

The Chairman: We shall have to wait and see how we get on. The right hon. Gentleman may be right. I shall adjudicate on the matter when the time comes.

Mr. Pannell: Further to that point of order. I am anxious to be courteous to the Chair. The difficulty in proceedings of this kind is that when the Chair has made a pronouncement, such as you, Sir Robert, have just made, and somebody else subsequently takes the Chair, we get a confusion of Rulings. You have ruled on something under your liberal guidance, probably somebody later will rule on a constrictive basis. Therefore, as this is likely to be a long debate, we must know beyond peradventure that the debate can be very wide, so that we can quote your wise words when we get into difficulties.

The Chairman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I shall do my best to see that those who relieve me in the Chair are appraised of what I have said. We shall do our best to be as liberal as possible with the Committee consistent with the rules of order. We are debating under the guillotine. Therefore, certain tolerance from the Chair is called for.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Further to that point of order. We are grateful, Sir Robert, for what you have said. May we take it that it is understood that in this discussion about the register we are also to discuss Schedules 3 and 4 which are intimately associated with the whole question of registration? I believe that that has been part of your guidance in selection.

The Chairman: Yes. The right hon. Lady is, as generally, quite correct.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order. May I ask whether the Chair and the Commit-

tee agree that it would have been a far more intelligent procedure not to worry about these Amendments, but to have a general debate on Clause stand part? We could then have six or seven hours, or whatever it is, debating the Clause. We should then know precisely what we were all talking about. I think that that would make good sense. Surely this would be the best way to proceed.

The Chairman: That may be, but that is not for the Chair. The Chair must look at the Amendments which are put down and use its judgment upon what Amendments it should call. It is for the general opinion of the Committee. If the Committee think it right, it must do so accordingly. Otherwise, the Chair must deal with the matter as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. James Johnson: Further to that point of order. You, Sir Robert, said, "We shall see as we go on." I take it that that is a liberal interpretation and that the debate can go very wide.

The Chairman: Order. It is difficult to make a general declaration on a large group of Amendments of what might or might not be in order at any one time. I hope that the Committee will leave it to the desire of the Chair to meet the wishes of the Committee as a whole.

Mr. John Fraser: I understand that it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 791, 792, 763 and 768. I think that we shall almost certainly want a Division on Amendment No.768.
This group of Amendments—in particular Amendment No.747—brings us to what is really one of the major issues in the Bill. Put simply, it is whether a trade union——

Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with the amplifying system, but it is impossible to hear my hon. Friend, even at this distance.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order. I think it is done in ignorance of the fact that, by turning his head towards you, Sir Robert, the hon. Gentleman's voice is not carried over by the amplifier.

The Chairman: There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to address the Chair, but if he can throw his voice outwards I think that everyone will hear well.

Mr. Fraser: I apologise to my hon. Friends, and I hope that they can now hear me.
We are now discussing one of the major issues raised by the Bill, and it is whether a trade union, as it has existed for the last 60 years, may continue to be a trade union because, under the terms of the Clause, unless a trade union is registered as a trade union, unless it chooses to go through the hoop, it will, for the purposes of this Measure, no longer be a trade union.
The purpose of this group of Amendments is to elucidate whether a trade union, unless it goes through the hoop of registration and complies with the requirements laid down by the Government, will become only an organisation of workers and be exposed to many penalties, and whether, if it wants to continue as a trade union, it may do so on one condition only, and that is a condition which I do not think is attached to any comparable organisation. The condition is that it may be a trade union only if it gets licence from the State.
The provisions for the giving of a licence are unequalled anyway anywhere because, to get a licence, a trade union has to observe the principles set out in Clause 61. These are principles for which I believe there is no precedent in any other legislation about incorporation. There are no similar provisions in the Companies Acts. If there were, it might be that brewers would have to observe certain principles, and perhaps be struck off the register for subscribing money to the Conservative Party.
The whole purpose of legislation is to be precise, and that is what industrial collective bargaining is all about. We must have agreements which are precise, and which people understand. One hoop through which a trade union must go before it is registered is that it must comply with certain principles. I challenge the Solicitor-General to give us examples of so vague a concept being applied to the running of any other organisation.
One principle is that the organisation is to be denied the right to choose its own members, a principle of association which is not observed in any other sphere. Secondly, it has to jump through the hoop of Schedule 3. Under that Schedule, if a union is registered it will be robbed of the discretion to appoint its own officers and officials and to specify which official does what. If a union wants to have a degree of discretion to be able to change duties from one person to another in the light of particular situations, it will not be able to be registered.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that Clause 61 precluded unions from having the right to elect its own officers. Is that a reference to subsection (4)? If so, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is subject to the words
by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination"?
Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is wrong to have a principle that there should be no arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination in the selection of officers?

Mr. Fraser: I am not arguing that case. We shall in due course discuss Clause 61 in more detail. If one looks at the earlier wording of the subsection, one sees that it is so drawn that it includes many people who may not be able to be admitted to a trade union. For instance, the subsection refers to a person being "reasonably well qualified". The right hon. and learned Member is a member of the Bar. Will he tell me whether somebody who is reasonably well qualified—not qualified—will, under this provision, be allowed to be admitted to the Bar? The same question may be asked about solicitors, or about any other professional organisation. The earlier part of the subsection is drawn so widely that one is virtually denied the right to choose the members of one's trade union. There are enormous practical implications here, not only for organisations such as Equity, mining organisations, fire officers, safety officers, and so on, but many others, of which no doubt my hon. Friends will give examples.
The other point to note is that in order to get a State licence a trade union runs the risk of investigation by the Registrar


under Clause 79 if it has acted in contravention of the principles set out in the Bill. The point here is that there is a vague concept of principles, and it is important to note that the Clause does not say that the union can be investigated for a breach of its rules, a concept which I could not accept anyway, but merely that if a trade union has broken what, in the Government's view, is a broad concept, and has not spelled out in detail, as most Statutes would do, what it has done, it will be subject to investigation, and again I can find no precedent for such a provision.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 64 is the most objectionable Clause of all. Under it, in order to get its State licence, a union must comply with requirements imposed by the Registrar. There is no qualification of the Clause, and my view is that one has to read its provisions in the light of Clause I, and this is where it begins to assume significance. Clause 1 says that trade unions have to be responsible. "Responsible" is a subjective word, and therefore I take it, from the conditions which will be attached to the licence granted to a trade union, that one could get the situation that the Registrar will use political tests, based on the vague concepts in Clause 1, to decide whether a trade union will be registered or not. This really smacks of such a wide discretion as to affront any reasonable lawyer, and it smacks of the wide discretion which is common in countries which do not know democracy.

Mr. C. Pannell: My hon. Friend raised with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) the question of definitions. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will define what is a reasonable lawyer.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Certainly not the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Fraser: I now come to deal with Amendment No. 768. A federation cannot apply for registration as a trade union unless all its constituent members are also registered trade unions. This means that the Government are putting federations through the hoop because, under the terms of the Clause as it stands, the T.U.C. cannot become a registered trade

union unless all its constituent members also become trade unions, and the same applies to other federations of trade unions. The result of this provision will be to drive a divide in federations of organisations. The result will be to drive a divide in the T.U.C., which will then be faced with doing one of two things. It will either have to expel the affiliated organisations if it wants to get registration—because all its constituent members have to be trade unions before it can become a trade union for the purpose of the Bill—or face the possibility of not being a trade union. In that event, it will be possible for the T.U.C. to be sued for damages for aiding and abetting a strike in breach of contract.
That is the Government's recipe for better industrial relations. They propose to drive a wedge in the T.U.C. by making it difficult for it to carry on as the kind of organisation that it is now. The Government propose to drive wedges through federations of trade union organisations and then to expose the T.U.C., if necessary, to actions for damages. This is another hoop through which any organisation will have to jump in order to get its State licence. This concept of a State licence is an assault upon the right of association such as one knows it in most democratic countries.
As I said last night, no such provision exists for companies.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. He will be aware that if he or I sought to register a new company, or even if we applied for a name for it, the Registrar would want to be sure that the composition of the board of the proposed company was of such standing as to merit use of such a name, particularly if it was a territorial name which gave the public the impression that it was a company of some substance. There are all sorts of requirements of that nature in company legislation.

Mr. Fraser: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman last night, the company does not have to register. It can continue as a partnership and does not have to go through the hoop at all. The law which applies to a partnership in relation to third parties and the law relating to a company and its relationships with third parties, on the sort of issues with which we are dealing, industrial contracts, the


law of tort and so on, will be basically the same. The second mistake which the hon. Gentleman makes is that he equates the duties and the responsibilities thrust upon a number of people who, let us say, work in a sweat shop, who want to get a decent standard of living, with a company that wants to register with a capital of £1 million in order to trade all over the world. There is an imbalance of power between many working class people and the holders of power and wealth.
The sort of rules laid down here do not apply to companies, otherwise the Solicitor-General would be saying that no company would be able to issue non-voting shares. Since the company is on one side of the bargain and the trade union is on the other side, why is it that the shareholders, the people who contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the country, should be denied even a vote for the choice of their board of managing directors. There is no equation between the two, first, because the power is not equal, second, because some of the principles of these rules go much further than those applying to any other association, and third, in all other spheres of activity people have the right to choose between becoming registered and not becoming registered. The whole purpose of the Bill is to force trade unions into registration.
Last night we had an inkling of the reason for requiring registration and compliance with the principles, directives and broad discretion set out in the Bill. It was that if the trade unions want certain privileges they have to undertake the requirements of registration. What an insult to the trade union movement. Do the Government believe that the T.U.C. exercises unreasonable privileges in the way in which it tries to work in the fostering of our economy? What about trade union leaders' contributions on economic development committees and the time that they voluntarily give for the good of the country? Do they think that that is a privilege? It is not. These services are willingly given for the benefit and prosperity of the country. Do the Government think that the unofficial duties undertaken by trade union officials outside their organisations are privileges for which they have to suffer penalties

under the Bill? That is an insult to the trade union movement.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we do not have a problem of abuse of privilege by the trade union movement, and that it acts responsibly and enters into responsible bargains. In its thinking is very often way ahead of employers and certainly of this Government. To say that up to now they have enjoyed privileges as a result of which they must now be subjected to registration is an insult to many millions of people belonging to the movement.
The Government force them into this because they say, "If you do not register you will be liable for damages, and for many activities which you undertake at present for your members you will risk prosecution in the courts. If you do not register you will not be able to claim the legal right of recognition. If you do not register, you will be deprived of many of the rights and customs which you have been able to enjoy up to the present time." Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is forcing them into his registration and his kind of registration.
Many unions may choose not to register. Many people may choose to exercise their right of association, as an organisation of workers, in a way in which they think fit. There is no evidence that unions are undemocratic. Broadly speaking, their rules are good ones, and better than those of other organisations. But the Government are forcing them either to register—which some will find difficult—or not to register. If they do not, they will be subject to damages. What they are trying to tell the Committee and the country is that somehow this legal claptrap will improve industrial relations, and that somehow they will be improved if the T.U.C. is laid open to actions for damages. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that applications to the High Court by the Registrar to deregister a union because it does not come up to the terms of his requirements, which are broad and vague in the Bill, will improve industrial relations, he is making a very severe mistake. This is an assault on the right of association. It is an insult to the trade union movement. Our Amendments should be accepted and it ought to be dropped.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When my right hon. and learned Friend


used the word "privileges" yesterday, he was probably using the word in its strict legal sense. He would be the first to recognise that in the social and political sense the trade union movement has no special privileges and exercises its powers in a reasonable way, as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) suggested. But we are dealing with strictly legal matters at the moment, whether the Opposition like it or not. "Privileges" is the correct word in law.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Rights.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The parallel with the registration of companies which the hon. Member for Norwood drew is not a bad one. He, however, equated companies with partnerships. But the privilege which the company gets from registration, as opposed to the partnership, is the great privilege of limited liability. It is an enormous privilege. The privilege—again using the word in its legal sense—which the registered trade union will get is in a sense a greater privilege, because its liability would not merely be limited but would be nil. Therefore, there is a parallel between the requirement of registration of a company and of a trade union, in principle though not in detail. It is a parallel in principle in favour of the registered trade union, because its liability will be nothing, whereas the liability of the company in actions in the court is limited to the amount of its paid up capital, or capital whether paid up or not. Whether it be right or wrong socially, that is the legal reason for calling the position "privilege".
We are dealing with the new Registrar, who is certainly a very different and much more powerful animal than the old Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Registrar of Friendly Societies, who has hitherto dealt with these matters, has had no compulsory powers, although about 80 per cent. of trade unions find it convenient to register. and his task has been chiefly one of examining the internal finances of trade unions and seeing that the right annual returns are made. Fortunately, in this country here have been no great financial scandals about trade unions, as there have been, for example, in the United States. Therefore, his functions have been out of the public glare altogether. No very great change is suggested

in that regard under the new Registrar. But the new Registrar now takes on a very much greater importance. He has to pass the rules, not those merely connected with the making of reports relating to the property and income of a trade union, but those set out on page 175 of the Donovan Report, concerning who shall be qualified for admission, who shall decide who is qualified for admission, what right of appeal someone not admitted shall have, questions of discipline, questions of election, and, according to Schedule 3 of the Bill, questions of expulsion. It is on that last note that I would like to hear what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind for what some hon. Members may regard as a bee in my bonnet, and that is the question of expulsion from a union which is operating an agency shop.
4.30 p.m.
There is nothing in Schedule 3 giving any such question of expulsion a special place. To take up some words used by the hon. Member for Norwood, I wonder whether the rather vague words in Clause 64(4)(b) have any connection with what I am now discussing. When the rules are submitted to the Registrar,
If on any such application the registrar is satisfied—(a) that the body making the application is an organisation of workers and that it is eligible for registration as a trade union, and (b) that the requirements of subsection (3) of this section …
and then follow the very vague words,
… and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with …
That can scarcely be construed ejusdem generis. It is extremely wide, and I wonder whether that is to be the way in which, where an agency shop is operated, the registrar will require rather better provisions as to appeal from expulsion than are normally provided and are suggested in Schedule 3.
If that is one of the "other requirements" that are envisaged, it will have my support. But I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood that we want to know what sorts of "other requirements" the Registrar is likely to demand. It is a very large discretion. It is true that there is an appeal from the Registrar's discretion to the Industrial Court under Clause 72(3). In other words, there is some safeguard against a Registrar taking


too rigid a view. But I assume that courts are not likely to interfere with the Registrar's decision except where he has not exercised it judicially, and that he remains a powerful person with a wide discretion in the way that I have suggested.
It may be that my hon. and learned Friend can meet some of the hon. Gentleman's fears by indicating, preferably with examples, how he envisages the other requirements that the Registrar might see fit to impose as a condition of registration. I am not against giving the Registrar these powers, if they are properly defined or at least indicated. It is right, for example, that in Clause 77 someone who has been expelled from a trade union may ask the registrar to investigate the circumstances. That seems to be a very proper power. Again, I assume that there is an appeal to the Industrial Court against the Registrar's decision. However, we should be clear that we are setting up machinery which is very novel and powerful and which I regard as necessary if the paragraphs of the Donovan Report dealing with trade union rules are to have any reality. Without the interposition of a powerful agency such as that of the registrar, all the rest will be so much beating the air.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has drawn attention to the difficulty, which has been recognised even by some hon. Members opposite, about the meaning of "reasonably well qualified", and that is illustrative of the problems which will face trade unions as a result of this Clause.
The difficulty of forcing the independent trade union movement, with its extraordinarily wide variety of procedures, into a sort of straitjacket is known to all hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and it is beginning to be known by some hon. Members opposite. To be fair, it was already known to those of them who had some personal experience of the industrial world. Certainly it was known to some employers who are not in this House, because a number of them have taken the trouble to tell hon. Members on both sides about the problems that they will face as a result of trying to force the complex whole into a simple pattern.
The situation facing Equity in this connection is extraordinarily difficult. I do not suggest that it is unique, because it is similar to that which faces other unions. However, Equity is a useful example to take in order to illustrate the problems which will be faced.
Here is a trade union in which the reasonable qualification for entering is the possession of a contract. No one who has failed to persuade an employer that he is sufficiently well qualified to be given a job can enter the union. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may cry, "Closed shop". However, it is an open or union shop. It is not a closed shop. In the sense that we are discussing this series of Amendments, the possession of a job is all important. The union says that, if anyone can persuade an employer to give him a job, he will be accepted into membership. The job is his qualification. So we are not even discussing a pre-entry closed shop. The union says that the job is the qualification for membership. That is the "reasonably well qualified" operation in this respect.
It is written into every contract of employment that directly or indirectly the means of identifying the performer's qualification is that he shall remain a member of the union. That brings us immediately to the next subsection, which claims the right for a person to resign from a union. In Equity if anyone exercises that right, he breaks his contract. The contract provides directly or indirectly that he shall remain a member of the union.
If that provision were put into effect, every single contract in films, television and the stage, would become invalid overnight. This provision goes to the root of the contract. It cannot be broken and still leave the contract in existence. In the event of this provision being put on the Statute Book, every contract in the entertainment industry will become renegotiable overnight.
It may be said that the situation arises because of the very nature of the business but that it does not go to the heart of the industrial welfare of the country. I have been a member of five unions in my lifetime and never a member at any one time of fewer than two. I am at the moment a member of the A.S.T.M.S.


which was referred to the other day as Mr. Clive Jenkins' union. That is an example of a union which is becoming, almost the trade union equivalent of the conglomerates into which industrial organisations are moving.
If hon. Members want the trade union movement to modernise itself, to match itself to developments in industry, we will have amalgamations and some sections of members of the same union being placed in an entirely different position from other members. These are all expected to be subject to the same rules which this section seeks to force into a set, ordered pattern.
We on this side face an impossibility. Nothing which we can do to amend this part of the Bill can make any sense of it. Nothing can make it operate in a fashion which will be to the interests of the employing organisations, let alone the unions. The only thing which we can do is to try to remove some of the more absurd anomalies.
Later, I shall explain this in greater detail, on a specific Amendment relating to Clause 61(3), which provides that every member of a union shall have the right to terminate his membership—at anytime. This is entirely intolerable and unreasonable in some spheres. We cannot have a situation in which, at the drop of a hat, perhaps in the middle of a dispute, a member may say, "I think that I will resign; I will walk out of this situation. It does not apply to me, it is all right for you Jack". This is to apply "at any time".
What a situation for the trade union movement. What a situation of chaos for the employers. This series of Amendments does something to mitigate these harmful results. All we can do is make it a little less bad: there is nothing that we can do to make it a good Bill.

Mr. Gower: I do not complain that both hon. Members opposite who have spoken should feel concerned about the details of the system of registration embodied in this part of the Bill. Indeed, they would feel that they were neglecting their duty if they did not scrutinise such provisions with great care. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)—I hope that he will forgive me if I simplify his argument—asked whether trade unions, as they have existed for the past 60 years, will continue to exist.
I believe that they will continue to exist broadly as they have in the past, but they will be assuming an even larger rôle. In many cases, in the past, their limitations—if such they may be described—have sometimes been due not to excessive power or excessive claims or privileges but sometimes to lack of power and lack of means. In this Bill—this Clause is only part of the change—certain additional powers will be given to most of the unions which choose to register.
The hon. Member then complained that if a particular union chose not to register, it would suffer some penalty or disability. I quarrel with that statement. Those unions which choose to adopt a new system of registration will enjoy enhanced powers or privileges. To that extent, those which do not register, in comparing their new situations with those which do, might be tempted to say that they are suffering in comparison, but it is not accurate to say that new penalties will be imposed upon them.

Mr. John Fraser: May I give one example? If a trade union has entered into a legally binding collective agreement under the law as it is at the moment, and then does not or cannot register, all sorts of penalties and liabilities will attach to its officials in respect of the contract made before the passing of the Bill, if it becomes law, which would not have attracted to it when the contract was first made. That is why I said that penalties will attach to trade unions which either cannot register or do not choose to register.

[Mr. JENNINGS in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower: I still say that these are not penalties, as described by the hon. Member. If any Government, this Government or any other, once decided that a system of registration should be introduced—this has been decided upon as one of the bases of this legislation—it would be a strange registration if all the unions, whether they registered or not, were in exactly the same position afterwards. In other words, it would be an astonishing kind of registration if a union which did not register was in exactly the same position, in every respect, as one which did. The registration


system could then be said to be worthless. I hope that no one would expect any legislative assembly to introduce a worthless system of registration.

Mr. John Mendelson: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the supporters of registration and of this part of the Bill cannot simply claim that there is bound to be a change if one adopts this change? They must prove, with good, sound, positive reasons, why it is necessary and what it will be useful for.

Mr. Gower: All that has been argued at great length, at other times and in other places, and it would be out of order at this stage for me to deploy the full argument for this system. We are here arguing the merits of this kind of registration. I agree with the hon. Member, as I think did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that some of the words deserve further examination. An example is the words in Clause 64(4),
… and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration …
I should like to see those words taken from the Bill and something more precise substituted. This could also apply to the words quoted by the hon. Member for Norwood, in subsection (2):
Any such application shall be made in such form and manner as the registrar may require.
I would favour some more precise definition there. If my hon. and learned Friend can evolve some more accurate wording, that would be an advantage.
The system of registration which we will have can have some value—indeed, it would be senseless to introduce it otherwise—only if it places a registered union in a position different from that of an unregistered union.
Both hon. Members oposite who have spoken queried suggestions—by whom, I do not know—that the T.U.C. had in the past usurped some unreasonable privileges. Those suggestions have not come from this side. The so-called privileges or powers of the T.U.C. have been merely those which individual unions have been prepared to grant that body, and in that sense it may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the privileges or the powers

which unions may be prepared to give to the T.U.C. There is nothing in the Bill to diminish those privileges or powers. There is nothing in this system of registration, because as I understand it registered or unregistered unions could be members of the T.U.C. in future. They certainly could be members of a common Congress upon which they could confer rights and powers.
The hon. Member for Norwood said that this was legal claptrap and that it will not improve industrial relations. We are not seeking to improve industrial relations solely by legal terminology. There cannot be an accurate system of registration without legal terminology. It would be unreasonable to suggest that there should not be detailed requirements. Many of the requirements specified in the ensuing subsections are for the benefit of individual trade unionists. They are not designed for the benefit of anybody else. They are designed to ensure that registration shall be efficient and effective and a detailed system of registration requires, not legal claptrap, but detailed legal language of this kind.

Mr. C. Pannell: To the extent that the hon. Gentleman arguing that everything in the requirement to register is to the advantage of trade unions he is, by his own reasoning, conceding that failure to register imposes a comparable disadvantage on trade unions. The whole question therefore is: should trade unions register? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the first things that Hitler did was to transfer the trade unions over to State authority? That theme runs throughout all authoritarian countries.

Mr. Gower: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who has such great experience, should introduce a comparison with Hitler; it is so unworthy in the context of this Parliament.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Mussolini, then.

Mr. Gower: Those comparisons are unworthy in the context of this legislation and of my right hon. Friend. This is not, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, an assault on the rights of association. It is designed to make association more accurate——

Mr. C. Pannell: Ineffective.

Mr. Gower: —and more effective and more designed to achieve the maximum improvement in the running of industry and relations between the parties in industry. It is not an assault on the right of association, but an attempt to make association more fruitful in the future.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Stanley Atkinson. [Laughter]. It is a question of dual personality. Mr. Norman Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson: I have suffered or enjoyed this dual personality for many years. In fact, the friends "Norman Orme" and "Stanley Atkinson" have been involved in A.E.U. schools and struggles for 25 years. For 20 of those years "Norman Orme" and I have been debating and discussing in various schools similar Bills to this and some of the provisions which we are now discussing. I see one or two members on this side of the Committee who have been involved in exactly the same discussion for about 15 years. We all seem to be a kind of rent-a-crowd, discussing exactly the same issues.
The hon. and learned Member for Dar-wen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and six of his colleagues on that side were at one time leading members of the Labour Party and they signed a constitution which was to the exact opposite effect of what is implied in Schedule 3. The passage of time has taken the hon. and learned Gentleman and six of his colleagues, including one member of the Government, out of that commitment and they are now arguing exactly the opposite; they are now arguing for the annihilation of the Labour Party/trade union arrangement.
"Stanley Atkinson" and "Norman Orme" have remained consistent to the arguments we used when we rejected the original proposals concerning registration and State intervention in the formulation of trade union rules.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are interested in who the six are, because some of my hon. Friends might wish to have a debate on this. We should like to know the names.

Mr. Atkinson: I have much to say and I want to deal with some fundamental

principles. We have in the House of Commons the equivalent of the "Guinness Book of Records". My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will find spelled out in that book the political history—"Zoology" is perhaps a better word—of hon. Members. My hon. Friend will find set out there what has happened over the years to certain hon. Members opposite, including one or two of the younger members of the Government.
I want to take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's description of these matters as "novel aspects". The Solicitor-General has also used the word "novel". Novel they may be, but they are totally unacceptable. It is because of this Clause that trade unions will decide not to register.
Another facet of the argument against the Bill is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of State for Employment, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment who is now on the Front Bench, do not understand industrial relations and are not familiar with industrial practice.
That may be true, but it is not the point. We would mislead people if we sought to convey the impression that the Bill has not been compiled with a great deal of knowledge behind it. It has. Those who have been associated with the design and the construction of the Bill have had tremendous experience as employers' representatives, either legal or otherwise; and, as a result of their many years of experience, they have come to certain conclusions and therefore they have spelled out with great accuracy in the Bill the best way of clobbering the shop stewards' movement. This Clause taken in conjunction with Schedule 3 is intended to do that.
A trade union that does not register will be vulnerable in the courts because of the repeal of the 1906 Act. Non-registration dramatically affects the finances of trade unions. The A.U.E.W. and the Transport and General Workers' Union are faced with a tax problem if they decide to contract out of registration. In the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union, it is estimated that it would have to pay an additional annual sum of up to £750,000. In the case of the A.U.E.W., the accountants estimate that we should have to pay about £600,000 in tax equivalent if we were


non-registered, and assuming that we were no longer able as an organisation to register with the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
5.0 p.m.
Plainly, a great deal of money is involved for our funds. The Government know that. They know what they are doing when they talk about the consequences of non-registration. They will apply right across the board, and particularly to those unions which have property and superannuation funds; they will become extremely vulnerable. We are, therefore, well conscious of the consequences of non-registration, and especially the financial consequences.
It is not a question of whether one registers or not. Under the Bill as it stands, every trade union will be automatically registered. In fact, there is continuity between the existing Register of Friendly Societies and the register under the Bill. Therefore, every trade union must decide whether to contract out of its registration after three months. The point of the period of three months is that this offers the only practical way of rewriting the rule book of every union. One can do it no other way if one wishes effectively to rewrite the rule books of the trade union movement. That is what we are now discussing, and that is why I refer to the intentions of employers' representatives when they have tried to devise a method of effectively rewriting the rule books and bringing them into line with the legally enforceable procedures which one finds spelled out throughout the Bill.
This is an absolute "must". If the Government wish to achieve the objective which they have spelled out, there must be agreement between the requirements of union rule books and the procedures enforceable either by the C.I.R. or by the National Industrial Relations Court. There must be agreement at all levels on these aspects of functions which stem from the Bill.
The difficulty in the rewriting of the rule books lies in the complication of the law. This is why the Bill has 150 Clauses and all these Schedules. It is a most complicated operation. There are five hon. Members here who, back in 1957, together listened to a discussion

about how complicated was the process of bringing the law or legally enforceable procedures in industrial relations and union rule books into line. We were never in favour of doing it, but we listened to the arguments advanced by all sorts of employers' representatives and academic groups who were talking about the possibility of doing it.
It has always been recognised that it would be a most complicated business, and, in that sense, I am surprised at the brevity of the Bill. One might almost describe the Bill as like an Agatha Christie novel in its length and complication, with the murder of a shop steward in every Clause. It reads with a continuity and mystery of that kind, and the complication and mystery come from the complexities in trying to alter union rule books.
I shall illustrate my argument by reference to what happens at present in manufacturing industry, referring for this purpose to what we often call in engineering the pyramid agreement. As I am anxious to quote directly from the opening passage of that notable employer-trade union agreement, the York Agreement, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) will be kind enough to find the passage for me. It is directly germane to what we are discussing in considering whether it is possible for some unions to register and alter their rule books.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: In the natural break while that quotation is being found, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind to say a little more about the financial penalties to which he refers. I take it that they are not the penalties referred to in "In Place of Strife" which would operate if a union did not register. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking of other financial penalties. They are not mentioned in the T.U.C. document "Reason" as one of the arguments against the registration proposals. What are they?

Mr. Atkinson: I was pointing out that there would be a cost to the trade unions for not registering. This has not been discussed so by the T.U.C. but it has been discussed in each individual union. The unions have to make up their minds how vulnerable they are and how exposed


their funds will be. They have to try to devise a watertight method of transferring their property, strike fund and various other moneys out of the union as we now know it, salting them away, as it were, so that they are not vulnerable to any decision which a court may subsequently take against them.
In other words, the unions have to try to protect themselves against the consequences of non-registration. That process is going on. Every union is employing lawyers and other advisers to devise a method of protection. At present, a trade union which is registered as a friendly society has certain tax concession. If it is not registered as a friendly society or the equivalent, a union has to pay full tax on certain funds. I have already said that for the T. & G.W.U. it is estimated that the additional cost will be up to £750,000 a year. The sum I gave for the A.U.E.W. may be more now because the draughtsmen are included in the amalgamation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It would be as well to illustrate the point by a specific example. The Derbyshire N.U.M., for example, gives every retired miner £74 a year and the total last year was about £74,000. Also, we contributed £47,000 so that retired miners could receive the coal which the Coal board would not give them. All these and other amounts are calculated in such a way—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is almost a speech. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Skinner: I am sorry, Mr. Jennings. The Committee ought to have examples of that kind in mind, because what the Government are doing is hitting the very people whom they are supposed to be protecting.

Mr. Atkinson: Certainly. One would expect the Solicitor-General to wish to assure the Committee that the Register of Friendly Societies will continue as we know it at the moment so that there will be no such vulnerability. I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone into the matter in some detail and has a ready answer. Will the Register of Friendly Societies continue? Will a non-registered union be protected as it is at present? I have given notice of that question to the Solicitor-General, so perhaps

he will give an answer during the debate. I am not getting much response now, am I? I know that he understands the problem because many of his officials have looked at it and advised people about it.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Instead of waiting for the Solicitor-General to tell him about the Register of Friendly Societies, will the hon. Gentleman read from the York Agreement?

Mr. Atkinson: Subsection (a) of the preamble says:
The employers have the right to manage their establishments and the trade unions have the right to exercise their functions.
That is a very simple statement. It is a right that the employers are not prepared to forgo, which is why we cannot make any progress in renegotiating that agreement, and why other manufacturing industries cannot come to an agreement about procedures. It is the reason why it is not possible to see a solution to the problem in terms of the law. It is the reason why trade unions are not prepared to submit their rule books to any registrar to have them rewritten by the State, to have a rule book which concedes that point at the very beginning.
Why is this so important? Why do the employers insist on it, and why have they resisted pressure by trade unions to change it for 48 years? The employers have resisted change in that simple statement in procedural agreements in other industries for more than 50 years, since 1918. I refer to the managerial right, or the right of a person owning property. Under what is called the pyramid agreement in every industry, if a management representative comes into the mill, shop or whatever it is, wanting to change a practice or introduce a new one, the workers' representative, whether he is called a steward or something else, must go through a procedure if a controversy arises. The procedure differs according to whether the dispute is in a mine, factory, mill or something else, but it is roughly called a pyramid arrangement.
The employer has a right to take a unilateral decision to alter the material, sequence of operations, kind of person employed, machinery and so on. If that decision is contested, the shop steward must tell the foreman that he disagrees. If there is failure to agree between those


two, the steward goes to the senior foreman or the assistant manager. If there is again failure to agree, they must then bring in the convener or a works committee to discuss the matter with the works manager. It may go to the board, where the employer's representative and the trade union representatives get round the table and have a local conference. If failure to agree continues the dispute goes to York or to other places in the country where employers and trade unions come together at a national level. That is the sort of pyramid arrangement written into most agreements throughout manufacturing.
The point is that throughout industry people cut corners. When the employer's representative decides to introduce a new method with which the stewards disagree the stewards usually take a shopfloor decision to stop the job, and a dispute exists. The employers have always worried about this. This is what all the discussion is about. It is what the Bill is about—how to stop that happening, to disarm the shop steward at the point where he meets the employer. No trade union has ever been able or willing to write into its rule books that the shop steward should be disarmed at the point where he meets the employer. There is no rule book in British trade unionism which says that a steward must go through a certain procedure. That may seem unbelivable, but it is absolutely true.
The A.E.U., which is typical of many industrial unions, has resisted pressures to change its rule book to take away from the shop steward the "unofficial" right to stop the job. It has signed many agreements, including the York Agreement in 1922. Every major trade union has an agreement with the employers spelling out in detail a procedure that the shop steward and the works committee must follow. But none of it is in a rule book. We have never yet had an industrial agreement written into a trade union rule book.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps because I am a bit older than my hon. Friend——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. It is difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pannell: I am not usually inarticulate, Mr. Jennings.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am merely stating a fact, that at this end of the Committee it is difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pannell: Thank you, Mr. Jennings. I am not in that difficulty so far as you are concerned.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the compliment. It is just as well that at times in this place the Chair can be heard. There is not much difficulty in hearing the right hon. Gentleman usually, but either the microphone was not working or he was turning away. I am grateful to him for remedying that defect.

Mr. Pannell: After those mutual apologies—and I have a very great respect for you, Mr. Jennings—I want to return to the point I was making to my hon. Friend. Will he put in a piece of history? The year 1922 was crucial. It was the year in which the million members of our trade unions were reduced to about 250,000 by unemployment, and we suffered one of the worst lock-outs in history. The conditions then were inflicted on us by the arrogant lash of necessity.

Mr. Atkinson: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is an eminent historian of working-class history. It is important for a comment like that to be recorded in this context. These points are closely related.
I should like to deal very briefly with what now faces the trade unions on the matter of procedure and the submission of rule books to be rewritten. The whole question of what the shop steward does in the event of disagreement is very important in industry. The A.E.U. has a rule dealing with the function of shop stewards. As far as I can check, this applies to seven other major trade unions. Oddly enough, in some cases it is rule 13.
When a trade union definies the function of a shop steward in its rule book it never attempts to write into the rules the agreements between employers and trade unions. They are left out deliberately. To have a legally-enforced system of industrial relations it is necessary to ensure that the rule books do not conflict


with the decisions of either the C.I.R. or the N.I.R.C. Therefore, it becomes obligatory under the Bill for trade unions to submit their rule books to a Registrar, whose job it will be to vet them and rewrite them in accordance with what the Registrar expects will be the decisions of the C.I.R.

Mr. David Mitchell: Why has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the matter will not be varied the other way round, that the C.I.R. will not take into account the rules of the trade union?

Mr. Atkinson: Because I have never believed that a court of law has either the authority or the power to revolutionise the arrangements between capital and labour in this country.

Mr. Orme: The C.I.R. is not a court of law.

Mr. Atkinson: A quasi-judicial body or other representative of the State has never overthrown what the employers consider to be a fundamental principle, nor can I envisage this being done. If this were not so we need not worry about the political movements but could depend on the judges carrying out a revolution, shifting the power from capital to labour. We could revolutionise the country via the courts if what the hon. Gentleman suggests is possible or feasible, but the situation is totally different. I do not believe that a revolutionary situation exists in the courts. Therefore, it is fair to assume that, whatever controversy relative to the procedure is involved, whenever a case is referred to the C.I.R. or the court, those quasi-judicial bodies will confirm that section which I have read from the York Agreement.
This is the whole point about registration. It is why no trade union in these circumstances could submit its rule book to a registrar in order to have him rewrite the rules so that the shop stewards movement is obliged, by the rules of its own movement, to conform with local enforceable procedural agreements which might be suggested by the C.I.R. or some other part of this whole structure of changing industrial relations. It is a fundamental question and this proposal will be resisted with everything we have in the trade union movement. This is what the issue is about and I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will get

away from the principle of demanding that a condition for free trade unions to continue must be that they submit their rule books to a Registrar so that the State can rewrite them. That principle is totally unacceptable to the trade union movement.

Mr. David Mitchell: I listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) with interest but mounting perplexity. He says that this is the heart of the Bill. But he has the whole clause wrong. It is a case of the chicken and the egg. He argued that the chicken comes first. The egg comes first, obviously. The whole point is that one starts with the trade union's rules and that the C.I.R. examines the agreement subsequently and will have to take account of what those rules are. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that that is the right way round. The whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Bill is on a false foundation.
I have one small perplexing question to put to my hon. and learned Friend. Why is Schedule 3 separate from Clause 61? Why does one have to look at Clause 61 for part of the required trade union rules and at Schedule 3 for the balance? Why should they not all be in one place in the Bill, which would make it so much simpler for mortals to understand? Someone has said that trade union rule books are more confusing than the law. There was a lot of wisdom in that remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?"] The right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), who was Minister of Labour in the last Government. In the Standing Committee considering the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, he said:
… I can tell him that I find trade union rule books more confusing than the law sometimes."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 25th March, 1965; c. 120.]
So we have good authority for noting that some trade union rule books are a little confusing. I have been looking at the rule book of the National Union of Printing, Bookbinding and Paperworkers and it demonstrates to the Committee one of the needs for this part of the Bill. Under Rule 27, a member is liable
… to exclusion from the Union, a fine not exceeding £20, or a warning, as the Branch Committee may determine:
(a) If having insulted any officer or member, or otherwise abused them"—


they are very sensitive officers, not to mention gentlemen—
either at meetings of the Union or elsewhere"—
in the pub having a drink afterwards—
by charging them with any act of injustice or improper conduct as to the discharge of their duties which they cannot prove.
Fair enough. So this sensitive organisation finds that one of its officers has been insulted. What happens then? The following rule becomes operative—that the member can appeal. But before he can appeal, if the appeal is against a fine,
… no member shall have the right to appeal without previously having paid the fine within 28 days.
So having insulted these highly sensitive gentlemen—these officers or members of the union—the member is liable to a fine of £20 and has to pay it before he can make his appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is arrears."] It is nothing to do with arrears. [HON. MEMBERS: "YOU know nothing about it."] I am quoting from the rule book. It is Rule 24. Hon. Members can see the book if they want to. That is what the rules say.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Rule 14 of the same book, to which the attention of a number of my constituents was drawn in relation to the instruction to cease work on 8th December, states that if they do not obey union instructions they are liable to a fine of £25.

Mr. Mitchell: I notice that hon. Members opposite are restive. The Committee is beginning to understand that some aspects of trade union rule books require looking into.
The hon. Member for Tottenham said that there was difficulty for trade unions in bringing their rules into line with the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke about jumping through the hoop. Do trade union rules require modernisation? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. [HON" MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman will not give way."] He has not asked me to give way. [Interruption.] Do the rules require modernisation?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This is getting noisy. If hon. Members want to interrupt—

[Interruption.]—let me finish, please—they can at least try to persuade the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to give way. If he does not, then he must be allowed to go on with his speech, and must not be interrupted from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) might as well learn the lesson early not to interrupt the Chair from a sedentary position.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings. Can you advise us on the customs and practice whereby an hon. Member who continually asks questions of hon. Members while making his speech but refuses to give way when someone tries to answer them?

The Temporary Chairman: The rules of debate are quite wide. There is a lot of give and take. Let us take as well as give and we shall get on all right.

Mr. Mitchell: I have given way twice. The hon. Member for West Ham, North, sought to intervene from a sedentary position. He has not asked me to give way to him. I shall be happy to give way to him if he does. I give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Mr. John Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as a matter of history, that such rules as these are based on the rules appertaining in the professions? Is he aware that, as in any organisation in which there is democratic control, the rule book must insist that discussion about union business be conducted in a parliamentary fashion, which excludes personal abuse, whether it be in the public house or outside it?

Mr. Mitchell: When I was a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I do not recall its meetings normally being conducted in the parliamentary manner the hon. Gentleman has just described. Clearly, in the last six or seven years since I ceased to be a member, there has been a substantial change in the way in which business is conducted. [Interruption.]
5.30 p.m.
We have to consider whether trade union rules in fact require modernisation.


Recently, one of the most exhaustive studies of trade union rules ever made disclosed a need for all unions to examine their rules. [Interruption.] It disclosed a need for action in a whole series of matters.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member quoting from the Donovan Report? Was that the exhaustive study?

Mr. Ashton: It is Ray Gunter again.

Mr. Mitchell: The exhaustive study was carried out by the T.U.C. It disclosed the need for action on a list of things. There was admission to membership; the Bill provides that there should be action on membership and no arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination. Do opponents of the Bill suggest that there should be arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination against an applicant for membership? Of course they do not. All the Bill seeks to do is to raise the standards of the minority to that which already exists in the best trade unions.

Mr. Frederick Lee: It is for the hon. Member to prove that such action is taken now, that there is arbitrary action against certain people. If it exists, where is it?

Mr. Mitchell: From the example which I have already given hon. Members will see that we have hit upon a dusty corner which needs modernising.
The T.U.C. went on to say that action should be taken about appeals against refusal to admit. One of the things which the T.U.C. said should be considered was strike procedures, and the Bill provides that the rules must specify who shall have power to call a strike. The T.U.C. also dealt with the responsibilities of shop stewards, as does the Bill. Very rightly, the T.U.C. saw the need for all unions to look at their rules about discipline.
I ask hon. Members to look at the kangaroo courts and the way in which, by ensuring that charges are in writing and that there is a fair hearing and that the result is given in writing, the Bill will ensure that kangaroo courts cannot be repeated.

Hon. Members: What kangaroo courts?

Mr. Mitchell: The most recent has been in the last few weeks when we have had further definite examples of the need for the Bill.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman mentions kangaroo courts. Would he define them and say in what strata of society he believes them to operate?

Mr. Mitchell: I use the phrase "kangaroo court" in the colloquial sense in which it has been used in the headlines of the newspapers in recent weeks—[Interruption.]—newspapers which from time to time support the Government, but also those which support the Labour Party [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): According to a previous Ruling, this may be a wide debate, but the subject of kangaroo courts could open the flood gates. A passing reference to them would be in order, but to go into the labyrinths of that subject would take us well outside the Amendment and the Schedule.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Jennings, I am not sure that referring to a kangaroo court is not in order, because Parliament has certain forms of closure—the guillotine and the kangaroo, which leaps from one Clause to another and back, which is what the debate is doing. It will all end with one vote at the end of the day. In the time of Mr. Speaker Brand and in the time of Mr. Speaker Peel it came to be a well-known device. On the other hand, I believe that the hon. Member is under an obligation in a debate fraught with so much emotion to define his terms. He does not know what a kangaroo is. Is he using it in a parliamentary sense?

The Temporary Chairman: The word "kangaroo" in the sense in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is using it is a procedural kangaroo. The word "kangaroo" as used by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is an industrial kangaroo. While the procedural kangaroo would be perfectly in order in the Committee and in the House, I am ruling that it would be beyond the limits of the debate to range too widely about the industrial kangaroo.

Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. David Mitchell: I have given way a substantial number of times, but I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harold Walker: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is referring to the exercise of disciplinary machinery by shop stewards and/or other workers at factory level. I remind him of our debates on Clause 33 when I pointed out, without rebuttal from the Government, that that Clause made factory agreements legally binding in certain circumstances and Clause 34 would impose on shop stewards, or others who have entered into those agreements, a policing responsibility. In other words, the Bill and nothing else is compelling the introduction of precisely the kind of machinery which presumably the hon. Member is condemning.

Mr. Mitchell: I am condemning not the sort of activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the secret trials without adequate rights of appeal which have occurred on a number of occasions. The example which I gave earlier was that of a man having to pay a fine of up to £20 before his appeal could be heard. That seems to be a breach of common justice.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that we have had enough of this aspect. I hope that the hon. Member for Basing-stoke will now come to the next point in his speech, for otherwise we shall get into very dangerous waters.

Mr. Mitchell: I have been on my feet for rather longer than I intended—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear:]—but HANSARD will show that I have not been speaking for much of that time and that Labour Members have insisted on interrupting.
I have said very little on the subject of the debate this afternoon—union rules.

The Temporary Chairman: That is what I am waiting for.

Mr. Mitchell: If I can get through without another interruption, I shall do my best.
The T.U.C. spoke of the need for proper procedures to safeguard the rights of the individual, to give prior notice and

a fair hearing, and the Bill follows the same lines by laying down that there must be writ ten notice of the charges and a fair hearing. One sees a continuing similarity between the requirements of the T.U.C., which had no power to enforce them, and the requirements of the Bill.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to examine the Clause for what I believe to be a small defect. It does not provide for a right of appeal to a committee different and separate from the body which imposed the original disciplinary sentence. The best existing trade unions provide an appeal procedure by which the appeal is put to a committee other than that which imposed the original sentence, which is right and proper, but there are some 50 unions which do not have such a procedure and where the appeal is heard by the body which imposed the original sentence. That is not right, fair or just and the Pill should do something about it. I recommend my hon. and learned Friend to extend the requirements of a trade union's rules to ensure that they provide for a body to hear an appeal separate from that which imposed the original sentence.
The Bill seeks to raise the standards of the minority to embody in their rules the standards of the best.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): I resist the temptation to call Mr. Norman Orme and I call instead Mr. Stanley Orme.

Mr. Orme: That is kind of you, Mr. Jennings. Perhaps we may return to the serious aspect of this debate, which has been lost in the highways and byways of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). All that we have had from him are innuendoes against trade unions and the trade union movement.

Mr. David Mitchell: Mr. David Mitchell rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Mitchell: I gave way.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Orme rose——

Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make charges against another hon. Member and not to allow him to reply?

The Temporary Chairman: The charge made was one of an hon. Member indulging in innuendo. If that is the worst charge that can be made against an hon. Member then we are doing very well. There is no obligation on the hon. Member to give way after having made that statement.

Mr. Orme: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchell: Shame.

Mr. Orme: After what he had said, if he cannot take a little bit back then he is a poor Parliamentarian and he will have to learn. I am not known for discourtesy, but the hon. Gentleman has shown some discourtesy towards the trade union movement and we are a little sick of it on this side of the Committee.
To return to the debate and this question of registration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) have said, this is a central issue of the Bill. It is through the form of registration, the right to impose rule changes and the framing of the rules required by the registrar that it will be possible to carry out the other punitive Clauses in the Bill. At the moment a trade union does not need a State licence to operate, because we are in a democratic situation.
There may be weaknesses within the trade union movement and no hon. Member on this side has tried to hide the fact that there are difficulties and problems. It is interesting that hon. Members opposite have had a great deal of difficulty in highlighting the real problems. They were challenged yesterday about demarcation and today about union rules but they have not come forward with what can be regarded as concrete objections. If the objections we have here are the main charges against trade unions then there is no need to introduce this Measure with this form of compulsory registration.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman's argument reminds me of something which I personally dislike, namely, the Ministry of Transport reply on a road problem:

This is a very dangerous corner but no one had actually been killed yet so we will not take any action.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member made a statement earlier about trade unions and disciplinary action and he has just made another which is just as irresponsible. He ought to learn, when we are talking about a matter affecting millions of people, to act in a reasonable manner and not like his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke who throws innuendoes about the Committee.
Mr. Victor Feather has said in the foreword to the T.U.C. document "Reason" that the unions have never been above the law, have always worked within the law and that the law has conferred no privileges upon them nor have they sought such privileges. The trade union movement throughout its long history has grown with our democracy and is one of the bedrocks of that democracy. Now it is said that the trade union movement is so irresponsible that it must have rules which allow the C.I.R., whether quasi-judicial or otherwise, the industrial court, judges and lawyers to impose what they think ought to be the rules, disregarding the fact that trade union members act responsibly providing their own rules and democratic structure.
5.45 p.m.
As hon. Members know I am a member of one of the largest unions in the country, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, with something like 1,200,000 members. That union had its beginnings in 1851, 20 years before the 1871 Act in which voluntary registration was allowed. Most unions today are registered under that Act, which imposes no restriction on a trade union and which works in a sensible manner. My trade union has, over a time, built up a measure of democracy which I would claim is second to none. This democracy is based on the rule book of the union, which I have here, which puts the power of the union in the hands of the membership.
Its officers are democratically elected by ballot; it has a national committee which makes policy through the rank and file members and, more important. if any member feels that he has any grievance


against the executive council or any full-time officer, he has a direct right of appeal from his branch, without being restricted by the executive council, to the final appeal court which comprises 11 rank and file members elected by the membership. The only full-time officer who attends that appeal court is the general secretary and he has no vote. That body elects its own chairman and sometimes meets for as much as two or three weeks a year to hear appeals on what are most simple matters but for the individual concerned most important matters. When the procedure has been exhausted no member of our union who has used it, who is fully paid up, can claim that he has not been dealt with justly or that he has been denied a right of appeal.
When we have established such a democratic procedure it is highly insulting to be told that we must be registered, our rules must be examined, changes may be imposed upon us, not by our membership but by a form of law which brings about a corporate mentality, a corporate State philosophy. One of my hon. Friends mentioned Germany in the 'thirties. This action more readily brings to mind Mussolini and the acts which took place in Italy. This brings about a corporate mentality which removes the true independence of the trade union. An independent trade union, not beyond the law, but operating within it, is a pillar of democracy.
The Solicitor-General is fathering a Bill which is an absolute disgrace. This is an anti-trade union Clause and it will be resisted by the trade union movement.

Mr. David Mitchell: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules about appeals against disciplinary action within the union to which he has referred are an exemplary example to other unions and to the country of how these matters should be handled? But would he not equally agree that it is wrong that other unions should have standards which fall far below those which he has described?

Mr. Orme: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but he has put the argument in a different way. We do not put ourselves forward as paragons of virtue. I have said that the trade unions are not perfect. The T.U.C. and its

recommendations have been quoted, but the point has been missed.
We say that this is a matter for the trade union movement and for voluntary application. Everything which the trade union movement does is done under the searchlight of the mass media. Things which need changing are being changed continually in the trade union movement. It is the right of the movement to examine itself. It co-operated in the Donovan Report. I was not in complete agreement with the Donovan proposals, but the recommendation about registration in Donovan was that there should be a registrar with two trade unionists appointed by the T.U.C. That is not the recommendation made by the Solicitor-General in this Bill.
After three years of searching inquiry, the recommendation in the Donovan Report, with one or two contradictions which were all recognised, was that the trade union movement was, and should remain, a voluntary movement. Mr. Victor Feather and the General Council of the T.U.C. are aware of their responsibilities. They want better agreements to be made and they want trade unions to have better rule books if they are necessary. But, in view of the amalgamations of trade unions which are taking place, one would be hard put to find many rule books which were not satisfactory from a democratic point of view. But the members have the right to change those rule books, as they have the right to change the officers of the union. Quite drastic changes in the rules and the leadership of trade unions have been made through the democratic method and process.

Mr. Gower: I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, but if all is well as he has described it, why did the Labour Government go far beyond contemplating and even prepared legislation?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that matter, but it is interesting that the T.U.C. and the trade union movement were able to convince the Government that they were capable of carrying out any necessary reforms and reorganisation.
This debate on the question of licensing trade unions is fundamental to the


trade union movement. It is at the core of what the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State are introducing. The challenge will be thrown down and the trade union movement will be faced with the harrowing choice of registering or not registering, with all the penalties which can be imposed for not registering. The decision of my union is that it is not prepared to co-operate. It does not believe that its rules and conduct are inferior to what is suggested in the Bill. It thinks the Bill insulting. It is opposed to it and will fight it. I hope that we shall return much sooner than some people think to sanity in industrial relations and that we shall tackle the problems which need to be tackled.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I hope that the Committee, and particularly hon. Members opposite, will understand that Members have conflicting duties and that it is only those duties which prevented me from being able to attend the debate from the beginning. I hope that it will not be thought discourteous of me that I was unable to be present in the Chamber for some time.
I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will not take it amiss if I say that I have a great deal of personal sympathy with what he said. When I have listened to him and his hon. Friends on this subject, they have reminded me of nothing so much as some of my hon. Friends who have been aroused to equally sincere and deep passion on such matters as Rhodesia and others which went deep to the heart of their beliefs. I understand how the hon. Member for Salford, West feels. I do not think I misrepresent him when I say that to him the Bill and the provisions in it about the registration of trade unions are an outrage and an insult. They seem to him totally unnecessary and cast a reflection on institutions which are as dear and sacrosanct and as much above criticism to him as are the Brigade of Guards and other similar institutions in the hearts of some of my hon. Friends.
I ask hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] I dare say the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is waving his Guards' tie, will understand, because his sympathies are obviously widespread. He realises how deep loyalties go, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not sneer at me or

deride what I am saying because, although I am not passionately attached to the loyalties of the hon. Member for Salford, West, I do know that they are sincere and that in debating the Bill we are, in a sense, beyond reason and beyond argument. I do not think that that is altogether dishonourable and undesirable.
However, I hope that it will not be thought quite intolerable by hon. Members opposite if I say with great respect that there is another point of view about this matter. It may be wrong and unfair, but—[Interruption.] It is the opinion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who we all know feels very deeply about this matter, that the Bill is unfair and outrageous. There are other people, misguided though they may be in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, who welcome this legislation. I do not want to put the boot in, because possibly more than enough of that has been done from this side, but it is true that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were capable of entertaining this possibility, although later, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, they were brought to think better of it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not being brought to think better of it by the hon. Member for Salford, West.
It is one of the brutal realities of life that there comes a time when argument is over and one of two things has to supervene: either voting or shooting. We in this country have a prejudice in favour of voting. The voting on this issue is not only the voting that will take place in Committee and in the House on this Bill. The voting that determines the issues in the Bill took place when the entire electorate had an opportunity of making its opinion known.
There is a vast swathe of the electorate, with whom hon. Members opposite do not seem to be in sympathy, who greatly welcome the Bill. They do not think it an outrage. They feel that these provisions are right.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a great section of the electorate was in favour of this Bill but is it not a fact that 68 per cent. of the electorate did not vote for the Conservative Party?

Mr. Iremonger: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has not been actively engaged in public life for as long as he has without having had to come to terms with this question whether authentic authority was given to the party which commanded a majority in an election to enable it to carry out its legislative programme. This, of course, is a fundamental question. It can be argued, and is sometimes argued by Oppositions, that Governments on that ground are not entitled to carry out their programme; but such an argument is a two-edged weapon.

Mr. Sillars: Life is difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but is the hon. Member aware that a salient feature of the present Bill was not put before the electorate—and that is the question of the imposition of agreements although both sides did not want them?

Mr. Iremonger: That is an arguable matter. I think that it would not be in order to argue that issue of enforceability of agreements on this Amendment. We are at the moment talking about registration which as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, is central to the Bill. He and I agree on that. We disagree whether it is right or fair and whether it is desirable.
My view that it is right and fair is not new-found. I moved a Motion for leave to introduce into the House on 31st July, 1957 a Bill which was almost exactly the same as this Section of this Bill, namely to the effect that the rights of trade unions should be dependent upon registration and that registration should be dependent upon unions' rules conforming to certain standards. I was refused leave by the House to introduce that Bill. I was subsequently told by one of my right hon. Friends who was then Patronage Secretary that my initiative was extremely ill-conceived and unwelcome. The then Patronage Secretary is the present Prime Minister.
I subsequently moved to introduce a Bill in similar terms some years later. I was then told by the then Minister of Labour in the Conservative Government that that was an ill-conceived move and that he would have no part in it. The Minister of Labour at that time is the present Prime
Minister. Therefore,

whether I am right or wrong, and whether my right hon. Friend is right now in having been converted to my view, I cannot be charged that I have not been sincere in supporting the substance of this portion of the Bill, for I have manifestly done so for a very long time.
I represent a constituency of people who would describe themselves as ordinary members of the public who, by and large, are not members of trade unions. They are people who mostly work in service industries and in the City of London. They are the people one finds on the Central Line any afternoon. Probably now at this time they are coming towards the end of their journeys home.

The Chairman: Order. No doubt they are, but they are not the people with whom we are dealing in this Amendment.

Mr. Iremonger: I hope, Sir Robert, that I am not moving out of order in referring to those people.

Mr. Orme: The Central Line has been out of order for two months.

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps I could make some rather uncharitable remarks on that score if I had a mind to, but I should be out of order. My argument was directed to the fact that the Clause as it stands would command the confidence of people who elected the Conservative Government to pass this legislation. The Amendment should not be accepted because the Clause conforms with the general wishes of the electorate as a whole.
The hon. Member for Salford, West may find what I am about to say offensive, and I can understand why he thinks on those lines, but he should accept this as a valid point. Those people think that whether trade unions have, as I believe, rights, privileges and benefits in their situation, trade unions undoubtedly have substantial and real social economic and political power. I believe that those people are right in believing that, and I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would deny it or say that it was undesirable.
Moving from the idea in people's minds that a considerable degree of power should be balanced by a considerable degree of responsibility, those people see


nothing objectionable in the people responsible having a statutory basis for the exercise of their responsibilities in the sense that their power shall be regulated by regulations made by registrars with whom they must register if they are to exercise that power. That is the philosophical and logical basis of this part of the Bill, which has substantial public support. The hon. Member for Salford, West need not feel that the dignity or authority of his union or of any other union would be in any way impugned if the way in which it conducts its affairs, now voluntarily, were backed by legislation such as this. I do not see why hon. Gentlemen should think it so outrageous. Why should not trade unions register according to certain guiding principles for organisations of workers such as are set out in Clause 61, to which we shall be coming—[Interruption.] I did not hear that. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene——

The Chairman: Order. I think that it would be better for everyone if the hon. Gentleman made his speech in his own way without seeking inspiration.

Mr. Ashton: Too long.

Mr. Iremonger: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Walton would answer the question to which we on this side find no answer at all. What is so wrong with these principles, in accordance with which trade unions should be required to register? Hon. Members opposite boast, proudly, and quite rightly, that unions in the main conduct their affairs in accordance with these principles. Nobody has said why they should not register if they conduct their affairs in accordance with these principles.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) opening the debate, explained in great detail——

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) was not here.

Mr. Heffer: —why the Opposition opposed the Government's policy of registration, and he clearly put forward the trade unions objections to it. The hon.

Member for Ilford, North was not in the Chamber at the time. I believe that he is wasting the time of the Committee.

The Chairman: Order. That is for the Committee to judge. All I have to judge is whether the hon. Gentleman stays in order. I am trying to watch that.

Mr. Iremonger: I know that had I been in the least out of order you, Sir Robert, would have assisted me to return to it.
My argument is that these Amendments should be resisted because they are against the principle of registration of unions, which is necessary in my view if they are to have public confidence as conducting their affairs in the way in which they should conduct them, if they are to exercise the power which greatly affects the lives of ordinary people. I remain entirely unconvinced by everything which I have heard, especially from the hon. Member for Salford, West, who seemed to be putting forward substantial arguments in favour of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Gentleman said that trade unions organise themselves in a proper manner without the assistance of the law and that it is in some way insulting that those who do not so organise themselves should be required to register. I am sure that when it comes to judging between the Opposition and the Government on this issue, the electorate will give the same answer in future as it gave in the past—namely, that it is high time that the trade union movement was brought to a sense of responsibility such as is exercised by the best trade unions, of which the union of the hon. Member for Salford, West is an example.
I am sure that the Committee will reject the Amendments and that it will be right to do so.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have not spoken on the Bill since I spoke against the guillotine Motion. However, I made it clear at that time that the reason, above all others, for my objection was the central matter of registration.
There has been no lack of speakers. Over 22 years I have had plenty of time to speak in the House, but I feel it my duty to reaffirm now the conviction which I have held, with increasing ratio, over so many years.


When I referred my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) to a matter of history, it was not so much academic history as something in which I took part. If I may address the Solicitor-General, the great dispute of 1922 was about managerial functions and the idea that employers had the right to do what they liked. We were locked out for four months. We had no voice then regarding the manning of machines, wage rates, or anything else. That kind of view of employers, which was inflicted at a time of great adversity for the trade union movement, is still held today. This is fundamental.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) thought it was an irrelevancy when I intervened to point out what took place in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. I should like to read a section from Mussolini's Labour Law. I do not mean to be insulting, but I note that the Solicitor-General has left the Chamber. The Italian Labour Charter of 21st April, 1927, states that syndica—which means trade union—associations are free, but only those syndicates which are recognised by law and subject to the control of the State have the right to represent legally the whole category of employers or employees for which they are established.
It is bureaucratic language—the usual gobbledegook which might come from any Government Bill, but particularly from this one. Of course, this runs through the Bill.
I believe that proposals for registration ensure that trade unions become part of the State apparat—no longer free voluntary associations, but at the diktat of lawyers who take a certain view of human relations. This is my fundamental objection. It even supervenes the principles put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).
I recognise the vote of 18th June. But that election was not won or lost on this legislation.

Mr. Gower: I said that it was not a fair comparison and that it could be illustrated by referring the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 114 which states that no court shall order any specific performance of a contract of employment or an injunction or compel an employee to do any

work at all. In Germany or Italy at that time it would have been quite the opposite. The two kinds of law, if the right hon. Gentleman so describes it, are completely incompatible.

Mr. Pannell: The Clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred is rendered completely nugatory by the register. It does not matter how it is achieved. We have only to look at what is lost through the Bill. The Trade Union Act, 1871 states:
The advantages which a registered trade union has over an unregistered one are as follows.
I am reading here from a real authority, Citrine, who, after all, proved that one did not need to be a lawyer to be an advocate.
(1) A registered trade union is entitled to exemption from income tax under Schedules C and D in respect of interest and dividends which are applicable and applied solely for the purpose of provident benefits.'
Presumably that would be lost by my union if it failed to register. I am told that failure to register by one big trade union will cost over £500,000. Let us not underrate what is at stake in regard to registration.
(2) On a change of trustees of a registered trade union the land and other property of the union which is vested in them (other than stock in the public funds) automatically vests in the succeeding trustees".
That is lost. Registration lays the trade union movement open to considerable risk of litigation.
(3) The members of a registered trade union may dispose at death of sums payable by the union, not exceeding prescribed limits, by means of a mere written nomination.
All that goes. More litigation. When one goes over to lawyers, it is not only the Registrar of Friendly Societies who believes in a healthy idea of spreading the environment of his own trade, its productivity and profitability—but all those who will be appointed under him.
There is a whole list of other things. It goes on to say:
The treasurers and other officers of a registered trade union are legally bound to render accounts and to deliver up to the trustees all property and effects in their hands or custody on being required to do so, and may be compelled to do so by any competent court.
That shows how much, under the present legislation, trade unions are under some form of control.


If the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) were here I should take him up on this point, because I understand that he is the Chairman of the National Advisory Council of a Conservative trade union. Being a registered trade union gives the union a certain autonomy to inflict fines according to the rules. In my trade union, which is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), before a person becomes a member of it he is given a book of rules to study for a fortnight, and he is asked questions before steps are taken to proceed with his initiation. I believe that my hon. Friend is a little out of date in the history, because in fact the union goes back far beyond 1851. It goes back to 1826, to the old boilermakers' trade union, and I could, in fact, take it back to 1780.
A person wishing to join my union is asked whether he has read the rules, having been given a fortnight to do so. It might interest the Committee to know that on one occasion when the president of our union was dismissed by the final appeal court Lord Goddard asked, "Did you read the rules when you joined the organisation?", and on that simple question the president lost his job, because he was required to know the rules, and anybody who joins my trade union knows that if he outrages the rules he is subject to fines.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke made some point about paying a fine pending appeal. There is a distinguished lawyer here. Everyone knows that when one goes to court to take part in litigation it is often necessary to deposit a considerable sum of money pending the outcome of an appeal. Anybody who has had experience of litigation knows that.

Mr. Orme: It does not apply to this union.

Mr. Pannell: I am referring to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said. I do not know about the "kangaroo" court. The hon. Gentleman was complaining that a trade union, or rather the district committee of a trade union, according to its rules, perfectly legally, fined a member and said that the person had to deposit £25 pending an appeal. I have never known that in my trade union. I have known that in my trade union, when a

recalcitrant member has failed to pay a properly imposed fine, the sum has been debited against him on his card, and he has gone into arrears with his payments.
When I spoke to the House during the debate on the guillotine Motion I quoted from an article in The Times of 27th January, and perhaps I might quote it again, because it puts the matter very succinctly. It says:
This is more than a nominal degradation"—
It is a degradation of the status of trade unions—
The present definition of a trade union, in the Act of 1913, is 'any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects … the regulations of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members'.
That is vital, and the whole of the 1871 and 1906 Acts defining union immunities are repealed. This is a substantial step and it was on this ground that I objected to the guillotine.
The registration of trade unions deserves an Act of Parliament all of its own. This is so wide and the consequences so great and so misunderstood by hon. Gentlemen opposite that these provisions deserve a Bill of their own, a Second Reading. a Committee stage upstairs, and all the other stages that are gone through before a Bill becomes law. Here I want to make another protest. This Bill makes the complete case for abolishing the old-fashioned Parliamentary Session which is based on a pastoral society, on the rotation of the crops, spring time and the harvest.
Instead of bringing things to an abrupt end in November, we ought to be able to take into a new Session any unfinished legislation and complete it then. We ought to be able to do this by a simple reaffirmative process, by a sort of Second Reading. We ought not to be governed by the need for Members who rise for the Summer Recess. The present arrangements were invented by Chief Whips, and ought to be abolished. The Bill is too big to be dealt with in one Session and it ought, therefore, to have much longer consideration.


I know that there are many hon. Members who wish to address the Committee.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Are there?

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Pannell: I had not seen the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliott) in the Chamber before now.

Captain Walter Elliot: I did not say a word.

Mr. Pannell: I thought that the hon. and gallant Member was making grunting noises from a sedentary position. I am sorry that he is doing that, because he and I went to Singapore together——

Captain W. Elliot: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I never opened my mouth. I never made a sound.

Mr. Loughlin: It was the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke).

Mr. Pannell: If a trade union is not registered it can get a certificate to promote a political fund. Will that right be repealed? Everything is being conditioned to the say so of the registrar. I do not want to get out of order, but legal decisions are founded on precedents. This court will follow precedents and deviate only when something does not affect the establishment. I shall not refer to the breach of the Official Secrets Act, but there is no doubt that if Lord Goddard had been presiding, as he was in the Fell case, there would have been a different judgment. These things have to be elastic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham referred to the pyramid arrangements in the engineering industry.

Mr. Atkinson: In all industries.

Mr. Pannell: Let me deal with something about which I know. Where there is a failure to agree on the shop floor, there is a confrontation between the shop stewards and the employer at that point. Everybody knows that the procrastinating processes which can be used will lead to innumerable further disputes. Everybody knows that trade unions will not

give up the right to confront the employer. The whole business of registration is founded on the idea that one can take industrial discontent and somehow lift it into the courts.
In most disputes the employer claims the right to do something, but the trade unions have always maintained that before progress is made the status quo ante must be restored. If a man has been dismissed, he must be reinstated before discussion about the dispute can go any further. In future such matters will be dealt with by the Registrar, deputy registrars, and so on. This process of registration will prevent a trade union from being a free voluntary movement and make it part of the apparat of the State.
6.30 p.m.
Whichever way one looks at it, that is the result at the end of the day. The Solicitor-General should be concerned about what will happen about the consequences of failure to register. It would be a very bold man, or a very bold lawyer employed by a great trade union, who countenanced or gave them the advice not to register. If they knew the consequences of refusing to register, it would be an act of considerable courage if the trade unions said that they would not do so, because courage is the ability to face a problem when one is most afraid of it.
Two of the great trade unions most affected have said, "We will not register". Will the Government take them on? It will come right down the line to hundreds of thousands of people in factories. That is why there is great protest against the Bill.

Mr. Tom King: I drew attention to the rule book quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). Perhaps I was a little misunderstood. I was not criticising that rule in itself. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) pointed out that many associations have to include fines in their rules. I was drawing attention to the fact that I thought it relevant to the great point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that there is deep, spontaneous feeling at the grass roots against the Bill, that in this particular mill in my constituency the shop stewards found it necessary to call


attention to this rule to get that so-called spontaneous feeling expressed.

Mr. Pannell: I want only to tell the hon. Gentleman what I once told somebody when I was interviewed at an airport when I was a Minister. They asked whether I would comment on an industrial dispute, and I said, "Industrial disputes are like married life. Only the people in it really know what it is all about." Consequently, I should not presume in the Committee to judge a hypothetical case which the hon. Gentleman puts up. I do not know from what it springs. I do not know to what "kangaroo" court the hon. Member for Basingstoke was referring. Like my hon. Friend, I must take responsibility in my own trade union.
I was once at the wrong end of the stick on an appeal against something which I did as a shop steward. I knew something about that. But we know how complicated human relations are. If it is difficult for me to accept, not the hon. Gentleman's word, but the basis of his case in the Committee, how much more difficult would it be for some Registrar, weeks after the event, to accept the say-so of various witnesses who may not be as literate as the hon. Gentleman? That is the case I put today.

Mr. Atkinson: A point arises very often from a necessity in trade union branches to dissociate the whole question of delegation from the rules of the branch or union. Very often a resolution is passed in the branch which is able to prevent the union having to pay delegation fees, bus fares and so on to people attending meetings. That is one of the reasons why these resolutions are moved. It is for the opposite reason to that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not to compel people to go but to prevent the branch having to pay out large sums of money in delegation fees and bus fares when practically every member of a branch is about to attend a rally. That is the reason that some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke refers are raised.

Mr. Pannell: I must resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend to help me through my speech. May I give one example, which I think would not be wasting time? I ran across a dispute

some years ago when a man in a shop got married—not an unlikely event but a very desirable one. Afterwards he did not like night work, and when he went to the manager, the firm immediately said that he could have all day work. The whole shop went on strike. It was a sensational matter and the newspapers pictured this as somehow unreasonableness and lack of sympathy towards a young married man. But it was not. The newspapers were silent about the fact that the striking workers were on a collective bonus system on the day shift, and every man on the day shift stood to lose 17s. 6d. a week, so they said, "We will not have it." How would that dispute appear when it came before the Registrar three and a half months later?

Mr. David Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee under which Clause the Registrar would look into such a situation?

Mr. Pannell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere about that. It shows his innocence in the matter, because this is how great disputes are sparked off. The boys would have come out on strike and they would have been in jeopardy under other Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman say under which Clause the Registrar of trade unions will be looking at this sort of situation?

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that this would come within his scope, eventually it would reach the Registrar if people took a gloomy enough view of a matter such as that. National disputes are started on a great variety of local matters like that. This is the weft and woof of industrial life. We are not dealing with people who have swallowed every dot and comma of the Committee stage of the Bill. Workshop justice is justice, although it may be rough justice. But the Bill would be expensive "justice" and would not achieve justice in the end.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Despite the prolonged teach-in on industrial relations which has been conducted in the Chamber, it is still apparent from this afternoon's debate that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the fundamental nature of trade unionism. I say that with the greatest respect.


It requires a Member of the Committee such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to offer all of us a glimpse of the essential character of trade unionism, so that we can draw something of its flavour, and perhaps even put our finger on its pulse. This came out during the exchanges two or three minutes ago. With respect, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) had not thought about registration as my right hon. Friend was thinking about it when he was speaking. My right hon. Friend was being emotional, because he knows in his bones something of the impact that this set of Clauses which we are considering—some of which we shall not consider today—will have upon industrial relations.
He is absolutely right. It is a crucial set of Clauses, from Clause 57 right through to Clause 84. It is Part IV of the Bill. Some hon. Members opposite might think that we are in sight of home, that the great contentious aspects of the Bill are behind us. But some of us think that we have yet to come to the crucial Clauses. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Some of us may have a chance to recall through HANSARD tomorrow the contributions made so far in the debate from this side of the Committee. I do not believe for a moment that I can keep up the standard and contribute to the feel for the problems involved which has been demonstrated by them, and the contributions coming from the other side, notably that from the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). When the hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee, I was wondering whether I should be fortunate enough to be called immediately after him. If I had been, I should have had difficulty in commenting on his speech. I have never sought refuge in the time-honoured phrase, "I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument." I should not have known which point to pick up from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which was no more than an elegant piece of waffle. Yet, if we think about registration and what it involves for trade unions and trade unionists, especially at the grass roots level——

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me, and perhaps he

will address himself to my fundamental question. 'What is there objectionable in the principles of registration to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from the point of view of unions which want to register?

Mr. Duffy: That is precisely what I hope to do. I was about to say that I would even agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said just now, when he commented that he thought eventually that the registration of trade unionists might result in a corporate state where the liberties not merely of the trade unions were in danger but those of society as a whole.
The trade unions, among other things in our society, represent one of the bulwarks of our liberties. My right hon. Friend spoke about Hitler, If Hitler and his troops had landed in this country during the last war, they would have met no greater resistance in any part of society than from the ranks of our trade unions, including the shop stewards, whom this provision requiring registration now threatens. That was the experience on the Continent, where the backbone of resistance was provided by shop stewards, most of them Communists, and representatives of the Church.
I was inclined to believe that the misunderstanding of the situation by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite was due to the way in which one or two of them earlier today likened trade unions to limited companies, and this point came out well in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).
How can one compare a limited liability company with a trade union? Historically, there has been the greatest possible contrast in constitution between a limited company and a trade union. In the former, all power has always resided at the top, the board of directors, and the lower parts have only been allowed to exercise such powers as the top permits. I have in mind the powers of a branch manager of a Tesco supermarket and those of the chairman of Tesco.
By contrast, in a trade union all power resides at the roots. The top, the executive, can exercise only the powers specifically given to it by the rules. A branch


secretary, being appointed by the branch members, can be removed by them. But he can be removed by the executive only if the rules say so. The position varies from union to union, of course, and some are inclined towards authoritarianism. But some still retain their 19th century democratic origins, notably the union represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).
It was suggested from the benches opposite earlier today that what was good enough for a limited company was good enough for a trade union, and it may be that that explains why we have this provision in the Bill. A number of my hon. Friends have argued in recent days that much of the inspiration for the Bill has come from the United States. However, I believe that the inspiration for this provision to set up a Registrar and lay down his projected role comes from the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956. The model for the provision of a Registrar in this Bill is the Registrar set up by that Act, and perhaps in a moment I might relate the experiences of some members of our society at the hands of that Registrar.
6.45 p.m.
Perhaps a further reason why the Government have introduced the Registrar is that, like some of their hon. Friends, they are disposed to liken trade unions to limited companies. However, limited companies were an idea imported from France only 100 years or so ago to fit an existing industrial and commercial need. The trade unions grew out of local societies which, in time, amalgamated with other societies and then joined up on a county and national basis.
By 1906, it was seen that the growing size of trade unions presented problems. For example, was it right that a local branch in Cornwall, say, which was uncontrolled by the executive should be able by its folly to inflict a penalty on the membership throughout the country? In 1906, this House answered the question in the negative. The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, limited the penalty in most cases to the perpetrator of the folly or his district. That was the effect of Section 4 of that Act, which gave trade unions exemptions from liability in tort—a wrong

not arising out of a contract—in nearly all cases. That Section allowed trade unions to continue safely with constitutions with power in the roots even though these unions got bigger and bigger.
Yet we have heard again today the charge that trade unions are privileged at law. We all know that the 1906 Act is to be repealed. However, although most of it is to be re-enacted, Section 4 of it is not. Thus, the penalty for a tort committed in Cornwall will be inflicted on the whole membership. Damages for a libellous newsletter by a Cornish branch secretary will be obtainable from head office funds. What is more, penalties for unfair industrial practice, though committed only by a local branch, will also be recoverable from head office funds, and we know how high those penalties can be.
In these changed circumstances, one wonders whether there will not be an immediate move towards unions revising their constitutions, regardless of the attitude of the Registrar, so that they have as much control over their branches or shop organisations as the board of directors of Tesco has over its branches. It is hard to see how a union ultimately will be able to afford to do otherwise. They may incorporate parts of the Companies Act, especially Table A, into their constitutions.
Much attention has been given by the Press, by speakers in the country and in some instances in this House to the penalties under the Bill. We have had to wait until today, and then only in speeches from this side of the Committee, for our attention to be focussed upon this impending compulsion to revise the constitutions of trade unions and all that may flow from it—a revision of rules which in many cases will not be wanted by the unions and which eventually will be insisted upon by the Registrar.
The crux of these Clauses lies outside what we are discussing, so I must not go further in that direction. However, already we see that Clause 61 and others between them provide the strongest possible disincentives to a union to become or remain unregistered. Any unregistered body which takes part in industrial strife or makes use of the industrial weapon is ipso facto guilty of unfair industrial practice. The industrial


court is not even able to decide on fact, whether the conduct is fair or unfair. It has to condemn it as unfair by statutory requirement.
Registration is not automatic. One has to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 3 and Clause 61, which will force upon trade unions certain new features, which some may want but others may not—for example, control from the top over all funds, under Clause 63 (1) (b) or open entry, under Clause 62 (2), or the requirement for no compulsory arbitration which is to be found in Clause 61 (10), or the absolute control from the top over shop stewards in Schedule 3 (6).
I wonder what has happened to the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who was so anxious to know why we were so distressed at what we regarded as the very real implications for trade unionists of registration. Registration will also impose upon unions the need to make their funds fully public. Their funds will be fully audited for the first time. The duties of their officers will have to be defined, which partly explains the increased turnover of full-time trade union officers in the United States, following similar supervision.

Mr. Tom King: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing it as an objection that their funds should be officially audited?

Mr. Duffy: I concede that it will raise problems—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are now."] Yes, they are now. I can see other ways. I am arguing that it will take away power from the grass roots and pull it up to head office, and that this will be especially true of funds, as has been pointed out today.

Mr. Loughlin: So far as I know—I believe that my knowledge is fairly comprehensive of the major unions—their accounts are officially audited, by qualified accountants.

Mr. Duffy: Yes, of course there is no question of malpractice; it is merely a tightening of authority in the union.
The overall effect of these requirements is to force or persuade the trade union towards a policy of power and funds being located at the top, rather than continuing with their traditional power and funds

at the roots constitution. This is the phrase which I wish to commend to the Committee. Second, it will make the obtaining of compensation, as we shall find in a later Clause, and the selection of targets by employers more easy. In other words, non-registration will be made uncomfortable, to put it moderately. Registration will then be used as a weapon by employers and ultimately by the Government to impress their policy, through the unions, on the economy.
My main concern, as I hope I have shown, is the way in which registration will force a change in the constitution of trade unions which will have the effect of changing their character. It will tend towards making them tools of the State. It will certainly make them creatures of employers. To this extent, we are in danger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, of sliding towards the corporate State, whereas, as I have said, trade unions represent an important safeguard of our liberties. Nowhere is this more evident than at the grass roots, at the level which will feel the earliest and greatest impact of registration.
I represent a constituency in Sheffield which is Labour-run. There are not many country boroughs now which are Labour-run, and one reason why Sheffield is Labour-run is that it is well run. It has a remarkable post-war record of reconstruction and urban development and it is run, in the main, by trade unionists, by men who learned their local government craft in their unions, at branch level. This is something which we should remember, that trade unions have traditionally been training grounds for democrats.
By threatening the life of trade unions at branch level, we shall have to pay not merely an industrial price but also a social price. I fear that it is precisely at that level that registration will make its earliest and greatest impact.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), I cannot see that anything implied in registration will, of itself, make a trade union a more pliable instrument of the State, or in any way more amenable to employers. I do not think that it will. That was a grossly exaggerated fear of his.


The nub of this debate was revealed in a speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). It struck me that his distinction between what he described as the shop steward movement and the trade union movement was absolutely at the heart of the matter. Far from finding his speech perplexing, as did an hon. Member opposite, I thought that he was dealing with exactly what registration is aimed at.
The mischief which the Bill is intended to meet is the mischief which we have been talking about for many years now, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government—that is, that many more industrial disputes are caused by unofficial action than by official action. The aim and purpose of the Bill, whether it is right or wrong, is to make unofficial action more difficult and trade unions much more responsible for their shop stewards.
Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) have kept an absolutely consistent line on this matter. They were equally against the Labour Government in this matter as they are against this legislation. They see this as a direct threat to the movement in which they have been brought up, which is not only the trade union movement but the shop steward movement within it.
As I see the requirements for registration, they will strengthen the trade union movement, but at the expense of the shop steward movement. What the Committee should be addressing itself to is the question of whether this is desirable in itself—it has many advantages as well as disadvantages—and whether, if it is desirable, this is an efficacious way of doing it.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) did not do justice to his Amendment, since he dealt with it rather superficially, compared with the hon. Member for Tottenham. He spoke of "legal claptrap". That is no way to treat Clauses which, after all, if the Bill is passed, will govern the relationship of the trade unions on registration until at least the Bill is changed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Repealed."]—or repealed—whatever happens to it.
Therefore, it is very important to look at the effect of these Clauses and this

Amendment. It is entirely academic to discuss this matter on the basis that unions will not register. Of course they will. Whatever they say now, no legal adviser could advise them not to register, because it will be advantageous to register and disadvantageous not to register. What the registration requirement and all that follows from it will hit is the splinter group, the chance of developing new unions, the shop stewards on the shop floor doing things at a remote distance from union headquarters, and union headquarters will be able to bring pressure to bear on them because they are the registered trade union and have to "carry the can" for the shop stewards.
7.0 p.m.
Anybody who has to study trade union rules is interested to find how much they vary. The hon. Member for Salford, West described his own union rules. I have not examined them, but from his description they sounded like what could be a model for other unions. Some unions have vastly different rules from those.
One of the matters with which we are for ever concerned in the Bill are the rights of a man to join a union and the powers of a union to get rid of a man. There is one easy device which has been accepted and used by some unions. When a man whom they do not want particularly applies for membership—it may be a 100 per cent. union membership shop—the method sometimes employed is for the union to enrol him, not as a member, but as a temporary member. He is issued with a different coloured card. He is entitled to a job, but not to the rights of a full member.

Mr. Orme: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us which unions employ such a device?

Mr. Hooson: S.O.G.A.T. is one. Any number of unions have such rules. They may be perfectly valid rules.
I see no reason why there should not be standard rules for trade unions. I do not understand why hon. Members on either side object to there being standard rules, which Schedule 3 would provide and which would give the registrar, who will clearly be an important personage under the Bill, powers to amend or change the rules if they did not suit the circumstances of particular unions.


Few trade union rules make much mention of shop stewards. Shop stewards have grown up as a movement within unions without having official status in many unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Tottenham knows that what I am saying is true. The rules of many unions hardly mention shop stewards. Shop stewards have unofficially attained a very important position in unions, but they are mentioned only sparsely in union rules. Their real power is very much greater than would appear from the attention that they receive in the rules.
The hon. Member for Salford, West said that to rewrite the rule book would be a very difficult matter because the rule book as such does not correspond with the actual powers of those involved in the shop steward movement.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and has great experience in the House of Commons. I do not accept his argument, however, and I do not think that any of my hon. Friends will accept it. I remind him that the House of Commons, which has existed for hundreds of years, has never recognised political parties. We are all hon. Gentlemen and we are equal theoretically. The hon. Gentleman is advancing a purely academic argument. I believe that, when everything has to be spelled out in rules or in a code, free will and free bargaining go and become the cat's-paw of successful lawyers who advise on things that they do not understand.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not criticising the unions for not mentioning shop stewards. I was merely stating it as a fact which must be dealt with. One of the questions which this Government and any other Government must ask in dealing with this matter is: if the Bill is enacted and there is this movement which is intended to discipline people further down the line, will it succeed? Can it succeed? Can one by this procedure succeed in making unions so change their rules and their discipline that they can control the shop stewards' movement as it has developed? As I understood him, the hon. Member for Tottenham said that in his opinion the unions could not do it in any event and

that, no matter what legislation was passed, the unions would not succeed in controlling the shop stewards' movement.

Mr. Tom Driberg: It is not quite clear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is desirable that the influence of the shop stewards should be diminished. If he is, will he cast his mind back to the Scamp Report on Ford's, which testified that the shop stewards had managed to stop hundreds if not thousands of disputes, on the shop-floor, in a matter of minutes or hours?

Mr. Atkinson: Can I clear up the point about the rules? I was arguing that in my unio—the A.E.U., as it used to be; the A.U.E.W., as it now is—the rule is clear about the functions of shop stewards. A shop steward does not have the right to take action on the shop floor to stop the shop in the absence of a district committee decision if the status quo applies in the factory. In other words, if an employer's representative comes into the mill or factory and changes the status quo a shop steward has every right to act independently of the district committee and to stop the shop. I was discussing the functions of the shop steward and saying that no trade union has ever attempted to design its rule book to prevent a shop steward from having the right to take unofficial action.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has asked me if I am in favour of reducing the power of shop stewards. I believe that this power must be reduced or changed. I do not believe that in practice it will so much be reduced as changed in character. One of the dangers about the Bill is that there will be more official stoppages and fewer unofficial ones, because the nature of the movement will change.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Tottenham for explaining the position of shop stewards qua rule books.
As to registration, we shall be left in this dilemma. The actual power in the union does not always correspond with the so-called rules. The actual power is not so much at the top but is dispersed widely at the bottom, on the floor.

Mr. Orme: So it should be.

Mr. Hooson: Certainly. There still must be co-ordination. Britain has failed


in the matter of co-ordination. We would not have had so many unofficial strikes if there had been co-ordination. There is something wrong when a Labour Government and a Conservative Government say that the great evil in Britain on the trades dispute side is the unofficial strike, as opposed to the situation in America, where there is the official strike.
Balancing these matters, I believe that it is desirable to have registration. The analogy has been drawn that Mussolini required registration. So does Sweden. That is an argument neither for nor against and it does not help at all.
It is desirable that there should be model rules, because I accept that the trade union movement is a great bulwark of liberty. Some trade unions have the most excellent rules. Like rules in all other organisations, they are sometimes bent a little. Some unions have rules which are not so good. I do not see any reason why there should not be model rules. I see no reason why the Registrar should not have power over the rules in this way. I see no reason why the whole thing should not be controlled.
As I said on Second Reading, trade unions have become a fourth escape. Having reached that state, they need rules of a much more formal character than they formerly did. When any body over a period of time evolves, it is found that to safeguard freedom within that body more formalities and more rules are needed than the body had in its formative years. Exactly the same has happened to the British trade movement. When all the ballyhoo is over, people will find that, for the established trade unions, registration will have made very little difference.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Until my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke, I thought that I was attending an A.E.F. love-in. I have no great criticism to make of the A.E.F., of course, save that at present it shows no desire to merge with the T. & G.W.U., but perhaps that goes back to original sin and may be understandable.

Mr. Frederick Lee: If my hon. Friend's union chooses to make representations to us, we shall consider them.

Mr. McNamara: Perhaps then my right hon. Friend could claim to be a member of the first largest union, not just the second.
My hon. Friends paid proper regard to the rules of their union. It is an ancient union with a long and distinguished history. They are proud of their rules. But so are we all proud of our rules. Our rule books enshrine our rules, the rules which we make in deciding what regulations shall be applied to our affairs. They are the rules which we lay down for the running of our own unions. They are ours; that is the important thing about them.
The Bill would change our rules. It would say that someone else could examine the rules of my union, go through them, examine them closely, and, perhaps, say that a rule did not meet, for example, the provisions of Clause 1. In that case, that rule would be out.
It so happens that my union expresses in one of its rules the implementation of Clause Four on the Labour Party. In fact, we had it before the Labour Party did. But is that within the "national interest" as Ministers interpret it? Speaking earlier about registration and what was responsible trade unionism, the Minister said that "responsible" must be interpreted in relation to the national interest. We asked what "national interest" meant, but he could not define it, or he refused to do so.
This is the nub of our argument when we say that these provisions will start us on the way to the corporate State. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) went through the steps, showing that ultimately we should have a political decision reached on what was or was not good for trade unions. This is what makes the provisions about registration so reprehensible within the framework of a Bill of this kind.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is probably right when he says that registration does not matter one way or another. Sweden has it, he says. But so does Italy. What matters is what lies within and behind registration, and that is what we are arguing about. To hear hon. Members opposite talk, one would think that we had not had registration of trade unions for almost a century. But it is there.


It was introduced to protect trade unions, to protect our funds, and to enable us to organise ourselves in society. We were able to do that, but the Registrar had no power to say what was or was not right for us as free men in our own societies, free men deciding what our own rules and regulations should be, whom we would admit and whom we would not, and so on. Even if the A.E.F. does not register under the Bill, it can be forced to take in people whom it does not want. So merely staying outside the register will not affect the matter. That is an important point.
I think that it was Sir Arthur Bryant in one of his histories who spoke about an English yeoman farmer who, before he died, left directions in his will that spikes were to be put over his grave, because no one had ever trampled over him in life and he intended no one ever to do so after he was dead. Hon. Members opposite would applaud that sort of sentiment. Do they not understand that our rule books are our spikes? They protect us and they protect our societies. The Solicitor-General and his right hon. Friend wish not just to blunt the spikes but to pull them entirely away. In effect, the Government are saying that the rules of our societies must be subject to the decisions of the Secretary of State according to his interpretation of the national interest. This is what percolates through the whole Bill, and it worries us greatly.
7.15 p.m.
In the speeches of hon. Members opposite—one almost heard overtones of it in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—there is the suggestion that, in some way or other, the trade unions exist only to make industry more efficient, to make the wheels of commerce move more smoothly, to make a profit. They do all that, and they do it very well, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose is to protect the interests of their members. This is why we regard as so reprehensible the centralisation of power entailed in what the Government propose regarding union rules. The whole philosophy of Donovan about negotiations, and the changes which have been taking place in our industrial structure, have been away from the national agreement and towards individual plant bargaining.
If we are to have individual plant bargaining, we shall have to give more power and influence to the branch official, the shop steward and the person working in the plant or factory. That is where questions will be decided. That is where disputes will start. If we stop the negotiation and settlement of disputes there, we shall build up the cancer which leads to the mighty industrial explosion which can bring a whole industry to a halt or create the sort of situation which we shall later, perhaps, discuss when considering the question of cooling-off periods and ballots.
We must give responsibility to the person who is concerned locally, and one cannot define that responsibility in nice lawyer's phrases, hedging it round, squaring it off, saying that this is what he shall be allowed to do and the other is not. One cannot do that. One cannot legislate for a constantly changing situation, be it in workshop, ship, quayside, farm or even a school. One has to take the situation as it is. There has to be sufficient acceptance of the idea that the responsible person there, be he shop steward, branch official or ordinary union member, will be able to understand the situation and decide what is the right thing to do. Only within that sort of framework can one have rules and regulations in one's organisation.
This part of the Bill dealing with registration—it goes right through the whole thing—takes from us our trade unions. It takes from us our society. It takes from us the protection which people like my parents and grandparents, poor and illiterate peasants coming from Ireland, used to build up their own society, strengthen their position, and give opportunities for their children. This is what the Government will be taking from us when they say that the State should be able to look at these things.
We will not let them do it. These are our unions, not the Secretary of State's not the Solicitor-General's. They are our trade unions, and we intend to keep them so.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Hayhoe: First, I take up what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about the corporate State, because he was in some


way re-echoing what we heard earlier from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) when he spoke in similar vein. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are presenting a mirage of horror at what this Clause and the associated provisions will do. I do not accept that registration as exemplified in the Bill is the first step towards the corporate State, but. assuming for a moment that it is, I remind hon. Members that it was the Donovan Commission which made the first faltering move in that direction.
We can argue about the detail, but in principle Donovan was certainly moving towards registration, and in "In Place of Strife" the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) went some way further along that path. While we may argue the detail, the degree, the type of registration and the conditions, I do not accept that Donovan, the right hon. Lady or my right hon. Friends are in any way moving towards the corporate State in the registration provisions they have severally and individually supported.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious charge against the Donovan Report. Given the voluntary finding of its membership, he is prepared to support that charge with the text he has in mind?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that we can find it in Donovan under "Registration". There was the first faltering step in the paragraphs dealing with registration, beginning at No. 788, and in the sections dealing with union rules. I can find them if the hon. Gentleman wishes. The tenor of the whole of those arguments is in parallel with what the right hon. Lady suggested in paragraphs 107-109 of "In Place of Strife", where registration was proposed in terms and where a financial penalty was to be imposed by an industrial board. Presumably, the board was to fine those unions which did not register. The right hon. Lady's proposal would have imposed on the unions that did not register a fine in addition to the penalties to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) referred, arising from different tax liabilities and so on. Incidentally, I found it helpful to have the fuller explanation of this matter and the quotation from Citrine

given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
There was a substantial difference between the right hon. Lady's proposals and those of my right hon. Friends, who are saying not that penalties will be placed on those that do not register but that there will be certain advantages that they do not gain. It may be a matter of semantics, but I prefer my right hon. Friend's approach to the right hon. Lady's imposition of a financial penalty.

Mr. John Fraser: Since the hon. Gentleman has not got them, may I give him the proper references? In paragraph 649 of Donovan, we are told:
We think that the requirements can and should be revised with a view to ensuring better safeguards for individual members."—
and this is the important part—
but without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances.
In paragraph 109 in "In Place of Strife" we are told:
Unions will be free to frame rules to meet their own requirements.
The essential distinction is between the unions framing rules to meet their own requirements and being told the rules that they must have in their rule book.

Mr. Hayhoe: If someone is told, "You must write your own rules, but they must meet certain criteria", that does not seem to me to be vastly different from saying, "These are the things which must be in the rules." This is not a point of principle but of semantic detail.
The gravamen of the argument in the Committee is not about the words in Donovan, "In Place of Strife" or the Bill but about the fears sincerely held by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that in the provisions there is something much more sinister and dangerous than I see in them. They see much greater dangers and difficulties than exist, and are making somewhat of a mountain out of a hillock, if not a molehill.
I hope that all hon. Members accept that union rules are not perfect. The rules are extremely good in many of the major unions, but there are ways in which they should be brought up to date. That view is supported by any fair reading of Donovan, of the T.U.C.'s document "Programme for Action", and the words


used by Victor Feather in commending that document to the Croydon conference. Union rules should be brought up to date particularly to provide better safeguards for the individual freedom of members. We can find quotations to that effect scattered through the documents. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would seriously challenge the assertion that there have been occasions, albeit very rarely, when things have not gone as they should.
I accept in turn that Donovan and "In Place of Strife" stress that there is no serious abuse of union power across the board. But we are not always concerned just with the generality. This brings us back to the discussions on Clause 5. In matters of individual freedom we should be concerned with specific cases and aim to provide legslation to protect individual rights. I see these Clauses as having that at least in part as their objective, particularly where individual rights may be under attack, even if only rarely, by abuses of union power.
It is stated in "In Place of Strife" that the Royal Commission found no evidence of "widespread abuse" of union power. The presumption, therefore, is that it found evidence of some abuse. Therefore, it is right that criteria should be laid down in the Bill to improve union rules and draw them up to the level of the best. We cannot leave it to voluntarly action. The T.U.C. can do something and, particularly since June, 1969, has been doing things to improve the rules of its constituent members, but even if it succeeds with all of them there are 300 or 400 small unions outside the T.U.C.

Mr. Heffer: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a question of the Bill's bringing the rules up to the best but of introducing, under Clause 61(7), for example, aspects which are entirely new? For example, a union will have to accept into membership people who may well have scabbed against it in a dispute, people whom it does not want in the membership.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe: I would certainly be prepared to look at some of the words used in Clause 61. I think that I particularly

want to hear my hon. and learned Friend explain the phrase, "reasonably well qualified". It may well be that he will be able to convince me that the phrase is sensible but it is a curious one.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Hayhoe: I will take the advice which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is always giving to his hon. Friends when hon. Members on this side seek to intervene. As I hear him he mutters, "Don't give way." Perhaps I should on this one rare occasion take his advice and I give him due notice that I shall not take it on any other.
I was impressed by what the hon. Mem-for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, again in that lyrical way in which his heart shone through as well as his mind, in talking about the virtues of his own union. It would seem that his union is the very perfection of democracy and that that perfection is shared by nearly all other unions. I ask those who believe this why the percentage of people voting at elections in unions generally is often as low as it is. Why is the number of people who turn up at branch meetings generally so low? I know how low it is from my own experience in attending the branch meetings of my own union in the past. I do not believe that these figures underwrite entirely the belief that the quintessence of perfection of democratic behaviour exists in all the trade unions of the country.

Mr. Orme: Everyone wants to see the highest possible percentage. We should like to see 99 per cent. voting in parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, however, in some constituencies less than 50 per cent. voted and in municipal elections the turnout is often between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. In a recent election in my union for a major office, the voting figure was 20 per cent. Members of trade unions go in their own time to branch meetings and I wish there was 80 per cent. attendance then. But one cannot compel members to go. They have the democratic right to go or not go.

Mr. Hayhoe: I accept that, but I say that it is an indication that improvements can be made and that the situation is not as perfect as we would wish. The hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure of 20 per cent. He knows that, quite often,


the percentage voting can be as low as single figures. In my experience, I have found this to be true and again some examples are given in the relevant paragraphs of the Donovan Report.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will resist the Amendment. The arguments used in its support are based largely upon a totally incorrect reading of the motives of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite ascribe to us evil motives in this regard, but on the basis of their total misunderstanding one can have some understanding of the words which have been used to describe what might happen under the Bill. Take away that misunderstanding, and many of the speeches made by hon. Members today have been incomprehensible and not in line with what I believe will happen under these Clauses.

Mr. John Mendelson: From the beginning of this debate perhaps only one speech so far—I do not say this scathingly—has tried to deal with some of the true purposes of the Bill. That was the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson). It is therefore to his contribution that I want to address myself and why I am anxious to take part in the debate. I will not judge the Government's case on the kind of support they have received from their own benches. That would not be a fair measure of the case the Government are trying to make.
It is not very important to consider, therefore, whether these expressions of general sentiment are relevant to the Clause. What matters is a point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery left out. He dealt with the matter of registration and all the points involved in the Amendment as though one could treat the registration Clauses in theory and in isolation. But the nub of our case concerns the consequential Clauses which follow upon the appointment of a registrar under the terms and conditions of the Bill. That is the issue to which we have to address ourselves if we are to understand all the sentiments to which hon. Members opposite have referred ad nauseam. I am getting a little tired of their declarations of how much they admire the sentiments of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends have not expressed sentiments. They have made a reasoned case

and it is to that case that the Government have to address themselves.
If further evidence is required, I quote Mr. Victor Feather as a man who is not dealing in sentiment. He had this to say about these Clauses:
All this follows from deciding to replace existing social rights by a State licence to operate.
These proposals are not extending the rights of working people. They are intended to convert the rights that workpeople have established and defended themselves into legal 'privileges "dependnt on good behaviour.
That is not a sentimental view. It is an historic summing up by the present leader of the British trade union movement of what lies behind these proposals.
Why are they being objected to? I and many trade unionists who have discussed this matter with me at the many meetings in which I have taken part object because of the connection with other parts of the Bill. When Mr. Feather refers in his telling phrase to there being a licence for good behaviour, one has to look at Clause 61. More attention should have been paid to the text of the Bill in the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite. Subsection (7)(a) reads:
to take any action which, in accordance with any provision of this Act, would constitute an unfair industrial practice on his part …
that is, the individual trade unionist. The subsequent Clauses deal with the terms of reference which are to guide the registrar once he is appointed with the important powers that hon. Members on both sides agree that he would have. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) agrees that he would have them. These are the terms of reference by which the registrar will have to be guided. A whole range of activities vital to a free trade union movement are affected. This is not just a one-Clause Bill to allow the appointment by the Government of a new registrar.
The Government are asking the House to accept the whole of the Bill and all its consequential Clauses. Once the Bill has been passed, the terms of reference would allow the registrar to work by reference to new phrases and new implications and new legal facts constituting unfair industrial practices. That is the decisive issue which the Committee is debating and which my hon. Friends have been rationally arguing all afternoon.

Mr. Orme: That is what it is all about.

Mr. Mendelson: That is why a man as responsible, sober and level headed as Mr. Feather—and nobody has called him a sentimentalist who deals in emotion—says that it is objectionable to replace the acquired rights of working people, built up in their history of 150 years, back to the time of the famous strike of the scissor grinders in the City of Sheffield in 1797, preceding even 1857 and the other dates which have been mentioned. That is what Mr. Victor Feather has in mind when he talks about the rights which working people have built up over so many years.
The Government are attempting to say to the trade unions that from now on they must not go on building up their rights and conventions in their own movement, but must be forced to accept a biased Bill, including new definitions of unfair industrial practices and allowing the registrar, by reference to these new provisions, to decide whether a union should be registered. This is unacceptable to the trade union movement. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows, I agree with him that we must not exaggerate the implications of the Bill, and he had reason wholly on his side when he said that, but there is a connection between this provision and the rest of the Bill which the hon. and learned Member failed to make.
That is the kernel of the whole argument, but now I turn to the more general argument which explains why so many of my hon. Friends are sensitive about this subject, and again this is not a matter for sentiment. They know very well, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery talks about weakening certain sections of the trade union movement and reducing their influence, that these provisions are not: only objectionable to shop stewards all over the country, as he seemed to imply, but are meeting the total and unanimous opposition of the general secretaries and presidents of unions affiliated to the T.U.C. It would be wrong to allow to stand on the record his implication that only some people, removed from the centre of the trade union movement, object to these provisions.
The Prime Minister, whom we have not seen much in these debates, made a

speech attacking a group of people, shop stewards and others, whom he called loud-mouthed. Hon. Members will remember that it was a Saturday evening speech. During that particularly offensive speech. the Prime Minister talked as though he was referring to a different part of the trade union movement. But trade unions are so organised that people with local duties in factories and those in charge of a district, or a division, or a region, or at national headquarters, have much more contact than is often visible to the naked eye; after all, the telephone was invented some time ago.

Mr. Hooson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Frank Roberts did some research at the L.S.E. in 1964, and that out of 30 union rule books which he examined only five mentioned shop stewards?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson: That is the trouble with a great deal of academic research—too many people compare pages of print and do not know what goes on in British industry. I speak as a graduate of the L.S.E. and I do not take it remiss that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned it, but that institution, honourable and learned though it is, often falls into the category of those who are too fond of texts and rule books and not enough of travelling the country and spending a few years seeing what goes on in the workshops and factories.
There is a great deal of convention in industry, as there is in our constitution. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know about these conventions, but they are most effective and they are being acted upon all the time.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Custom and practice.

Mr. Mendelson: Custom and practice in industry and throughout the country. The general secretaries and presidents of unions and the central leaders know very well that the design behind the Bill is not to put a few shop stewards in their place, but to weaken the trade union movement as a whole. That is why their opposition is as unanimous and as bitter as that of the shop stewards themselves.
Much has been said about the disciplining of members. This is another important aspect of the argument. The


trade union movement has reformed its arrangements from time to time. Hon. Members have to understand that it is not only because people feel that it is morally objectionable or sentimentally offensive for the State to say to an organisation like a trade union, "You will reform your rules in this way".
I want never to shirk in our discussions of the Bill any difficulties which we had when in office. Hon. Members who are well informed on these matters will know that there was a serious argument between some of my hon. Friends and the General Council of the T.U.C. for several weeks precisely on the subject of how the trade union movement should change its rules. I do not want to shirk this issue. We do not want to be only propagandists. Why should we not discuss these matters as grown men and women? During that important argument, the members of the General Council of the T.U.C. refused to have their rules rewritten for them by any Government, no matter what its party, because they believed, as they now believe, that, as members of a free, democratic trade union movement, it was for them to decide how their rules should be reformed.
It is wrong for the Government for ever and a day to quote bits from one White Paper or another. What we are debating is the Government's attempt to do something which is deeply objectionable to the leaders and members of the trade union movement, not only on emotional grounds, and not mainly on emotional grounds, not only because they think that it is morally offensive, but because they are convinced that it is wholly unrealistic, will not work, and has nothing to do with the free movement of trade unions.
They take the view that the worst thing that can be done to help to make the necessary reforms within an organisation such as the trade union movement is to say, "You are now required to do this, because we as the Government say so". The Government will never be able to divorce themselves from this, however many protestations they make about desiring the reform of the movement only in order to strengthen it, because the facts are against them.
This can be tested against one proposition. One of the unfair industrial practices

which will become part of the terms of reference of the Registrar will be the desire or otherwise of a group of trade unionists to work with non-union labour. We always return to this subject, because the weakening of the trade union movement by forcing people into being heroes when they are blacklegs runs through the Bill from beginning to end. When we discussed this earlier in the definition Clause we had this in mind, that the early definition would always be returned to in other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that trade union members have refused to have their rules rewritten. He will recall that in this Chamber a few years ago traders had their rules rewritten as a result of the abolition of resale price maintenance. Would it have been right for traders to have their rules rewritten in the same way?

Mr. Mendelson: This is not relevant to the argument, but I want to be courteous to the hon. Gentleman, and what I am saying is that the British trade union movement has always been within the law. I deeply object to the constant use of the word "privilege". The hon. and learned Member for Darwen tried his best for his hon. Friends by saying that when they used the word "privilege" as they had done for many days, they were looking forward to what will be a privilege if and when the Bill is passed.
He will have to agree that the term is much more loosely used, that people have referred to the rights of working people have referred to the rights of working people acquired over the last 150 years as if they were privileges. Trade unions have been within the law and will continue to be within the law. They are not prepared to accept this attempt to weaken the movement in the disguise of legal trade union reform.

Mr. James Hamilton: It ought to be made quite clear that so far as these rules are concerned, trade unions, every two years or every four years depending on their constitution, have a rules revision conference. These are alterations not by the general secretary or president but by the members.

Mr. Mendleson: It goes much further than that. The present Registrar of


Friendly Societies has certain clearly defined powers. The argument has nothing to do with rules or whether they ought to be reformed but with the general attempt, linked with this Bill, to turn trade unions into licensed organisations. We are to have privileges as a substitute for what have become free rights, independently built up over the years. That is why we object to this provision. The Government can address themselves to this objection only if they accept that they must deal with the subsequent parts of the Bill relating to the appointment of a new Registrar.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will forgive me if I say that we have enjoyed listening to his contribution even if we do not necessarily agree with it. I have not seen one of his attacks quite so soundly rebuffed as it was by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and I think he has been man enough to concede that he has lost ground on that point.
Like the hon. Member, I have sat through virtually the whole of this debate. We have had a continuing chorus from the other side of the Committee, taking certain cases out of context and building on suppositions, drawing the worst possible conclusions from these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) made an excellent speech which I thought was one of the more constructive contributions to the debate.

Mr. Heffer: It came from the hon. Member's side.

Mr. King: An interesting point is that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who is managing to keep up a running commentary at the moment, referred to one of the few objections in detail. We have had tremendous fears expressed about the implications of the registrar but we have had very few objections to the code of principles the registrar might be asked to follow. Only now at this late stage has there been any suggestion that there is anything offensive in the principles for which the registrar will be looking.
One comment made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)

needs answering firmly. It has already been contradicted by his hon. Friends. He tried to say that this was a bosses' charter, that the Bill had been cleverly devised by all of the best brains on the employers' side to construct an aggressive weapon for dealing with the unions. Yet the most common debating point, which hon. Members opposite love deploying, is how often employers agree with them on some point they are putting forward. This seems to defeat his argument.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend would claim that the Bill entirely satisfies either employers or unions. There are certain areas where the Government have taken an independent view in what they consider to be the future national interest. There may be cases where both employers and unions are agreed about their position with regard to certain points but after the fullest consultation my right hon. Friend considers that it is appropriate to propose otherwise.

Mr. Orme: He does not know; he did not consult.

Mr. King: I recognise the feeling for history of some hon. Members opposite. The trade union movement has a tremendous record and I can understand the continual references to its history. It seems incredible that while there are references back there has not been a single reference forward into the sort of industrial society into which we are moving. We are not making amendments, regulations, and laws for what has happened. These laws and this Measure will relate to the future and it is surely this which is relevant.
The hon. Member for Salford, West took great exception to an intervention of mine which was not intended to be offensive. He was drawing a perfectly fair point asking where were the examples of past occasions that would justify this Measure. I was making the point that it is not solely past occasions but that we must anticipate problems, and it is this for which we are attempting to legislate.

Mr. Bidwell: I have been interested in the hon. Member's play on logic. If he acknowledges the widespread characteristics of the trade union movement, the kind of people for which it caters, can he explain why the Government have


achieved the almost impossible and united the entire movement? Can he explain the rationale of that?

Mr. King: The hon. Member was probably not with us a little earlier when we had a few exchanges on this point. I do not want to weary the Committee with my comments again, about my personal experience of how united the trade union movement is and about our doubts as to the genuineness of the spontaneity of the opposition. If he consults HANSARD tomorrow he will be able to read it.
I did not want this analogy to be emotive, but I took that used by the Ministry of Transport to justify road improvement. In that case there has to be a past history of accidents and not a genuine concern for the future and problems that may occur. It is the future with which we are concerned. Hon. Members have made great play of Mr. Victor Feather and the hon. Member for Penistone quoted at length from him. I am sure that he will accept another quotation of Mr. Feather's:
But rules must reflect realities and there is some evidence that union rules have not always been changed to keep them in line with changes in the pattern of collective bargaining.
The most interesting point is the recognition there of the change in the industrial situation. If I may relate that to yet another famous quotation of Mr. Feather's:
One man's strike is another man's lay-off.
We have had hon. Members talking about the responsibility of people to their brothers in the same union. We also recognise the responsibility of union members towards other union members in other activities. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are many different unions and styles of activity. But in the industrial society which we are creating, with lower stock levels in factories and a far more complex interlocking relationship between supplier and producer at different stages of production, there is a responsibility of one group with another. This is a particularly significant future trend and under it union members have a right to know that other unions on which they may depend are also governed by rules which conform to certain basic standards. If one accepts this common responsibility one quickly realises that there must be some arrangement for ensuring

that the desired situation is achieved.
I do not share the fears which have been expressed about all the terrors which might lurk behind the door. I believe that these provisions are a reasonable means of achieving the fair-minded objective of all of us.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to all the lecturers and lawyers who have sought to deploy the case for the trade unions. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King). I know that he has been charged by the Conservative Central Office to go round the country explaining the Bill. My advice to him is to stop reading the Central Office brief and to read the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) talked about the place of the shop stewards in the order of things. He said that many unions made no provision in their rules for shop stewards. That is true. But what are generally known as shop stewards are not always known as shop stewards in industry. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking I thought about the catering industry, in which the person who performs the function of the shop steward is called a house representative. The shop steward in many industries is not necessarily called a shop steward. He may be a branch secretary, chairman of the committee or a house representative.
May I say, for the benefit of hon. Members opposite and particularly of the lawyers who think that they know something about the trade union movement, that people are not appointed on the basis of names in the trade union movement. We are not dealing with unions and trade union rules in a vacuum. We are dealing with the sort of guidance which should be given in the context of our industrial organisation. Trade union rules are designed in a certain fashion because it happens to fit in with the industrial organisation within which trade unionists have to operate.
One can point to defects in any trade union rule book. The Press, lawyers and lecturers tell us the defects in the rule books of the A.E.U., the Transport and General Workers Union or U.S.D.A.W.


But, according to them, there is nothing wrong with the rules governing the B.M.A., the B.D.A., the R.I.B.A., or the lawyers. Apparently, only the trade unionists, and not professional people, have defects in their structures and organisations.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: The hon. Gentleman says that it is alleged that there is nothing wrong in the structure of the lawyers. Where did he get that idea from?

Mr. Loughlin: There was controversy recently about whether the solicitors should do some of the jobs of the barristers. The barristers said: "No".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a closed shop.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes. The fact that the solicitors can do the job did not make the slightest difference. It was said that the barristers should do it and nobody argued, except people like myself and one or two of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) should not start excusing the legal profession, because it is the biggest closed shop of the lot.

Mr. Crowder: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Courts Bill?

Mr. Loughlin: I have read so many things in the last week or two that perhaps I have not read the Courts Bill. If there is not a closed shop and a very tightly knit system of rules and regulations in the legal profession, then I have lived in cloud cuckoo land for many years.
Clauses 64 to 73 deal with the rights of democratic organisations to fashion the rules under which they shall operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) talked about Fascism. I finished my Second Reading speech on this theme because I believe that it is part and parcel of the corporate State. It is the same type of registration and binding of trade unions the exists in the syndicalists in Spain. The trade union movement fashions its rules and regulations in the context of the circumstances in which its members have to operate.
If in industry we had the same democratic rights and principles which exist outside industry, we could start thinking in terms of creating the perfect rules and regulations that hon. Members opposite want; but we have not. We have a totalitarian system in industry. This is one of the facts of life. All of us have our aspirations and desires. We can all say, "If this were in this shape and form it would be perfect". But we are dealing with human beings. As long as there is a totalitarian system in industry we shall have to have rules and regulations in the trade union movement.
Although we may have a registrar who says to the trade union movement, "You must submit your rules to me", and although the official trade union movement may dutifully submit its rules and regulations, when it comes to the practical realities of the shop floor it will not matter two hoots what rules and regulations are registered because the majority of disputes in industry are caused, not because of the rules of the union, but because of a failure in communication at plant level in the factory. All the registrars in the world could produce the most wonderful rules and regulations, and yet it would not make one iota of difference to industrial productivity which, I gather, is the primary purpose of the Bill.
Trade union rules do not remain static. I know nothing more democratic than the British trade union movement. To take my organisation as an example, the power of my union is vested in the rank-and-file members and every two years we set up a rules revision committee. The members of my union are not fools. They know that we live in the real world, that the situation changes, and therefore the rules constantly have to change. In a democratic society a democratic organisation should be able to mould its own rules and then change them in accordance with an alteration in circumstances. There is no reason that the Government should seek to introduce a registrar to tell the members who have created a union that they are not capable of framing their own rules and that the registrar will frame the rules for the union—or indeed that the Secretary of State will do so. We all know how brilliant the Secretary of State is. He could not write a rule in the trade union movement.

Mr. R. Carr: I probably could not write the rule book and, thank goodness, the Bill gives me no power to do so.

Mr. Loughlin: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's remark with alacrity. When a Government introduce legislation such as that contained in Clauses 64 to 73 of the Bill, it is the first stage to the creation of a corporate society and of suppression of the trade union movement.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I had not intended to intervene but I have been following the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) with care and it bothers me that he should think that anybody will interfere with the democratic rights of a union to make its own rules. For some years I have been associated with the British Legion, which is a chartered body and must go before the Privy Council every time it alters its rules. There are of course other chartered bodies such as The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and so on, and their rules must be approved. Therefore, the whole case put by the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. That is the only intervention I wish to make.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have sat through a considerable part of this debate and have had the pleasure of listening attentively to a number of powerful, and mostly good-humoured, speeches. We are debating matters far too serious to use this opportunity as a vehicle for scoring small debating points in the manner of an Oxford Union debate or a discussion by an academic group of people who take a number of books and documents and juggle with them like a conjuror in a circus. We are dealing here with something that goes to the root of industrial relationships. I am as concerned about the future of industrial relations—and I have taken part in the process for most of my life—as is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) referred to the chorus of protestations from this side of the Committee. That happens to be true. There are protestations from this side of the House about this Clause and many others since, because of the operation of the guillotine, they have never been discussed. Does

it not strike right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have devised this legislation as somewhat ironic and significant that in the twenty years I have been in this House—and I have taken part in the deliberation of all sorts of contentious matters—members of the Labour Party have never been as united as they are today in their opposition to this legislation? There is absolute unanimity on the right, on the left, and in the centre—and I do not wish to be placed in any category since I am not concerned with labels but with realities. This should be a significant fact to the right hon. Gentleman, who is almost punch-drunk from the consequences of his own folly in bringing forward this monolithic piece of legislation. He has only himself to blame for being duped by all the academic boffins who have been advising him. [Interruption.] I am making a serious speech and I am trying to keep it short.
We are constantly regaled with pleasant speeches by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Heyhoe) and many of his hon. Friends which are full of good intentions. I took the liberty the other day of reminding the Solicitor-General that in this House we cannot legislate for good intentions. We are putting on the Statute Book a code of conduct and behaviour which will subject trade union members or officials to certain penalties and disabilities if they transgress these provisions.
We are constantly told by the Conservative Party on public platforms that this country has been overborne by too much government and that government is to be truncated and reduced. Yet here the Government are going in the opposite direction and seeking, by the guillotine process, to force on to the Statute Book a highly controversial and massive piece of legislation.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is reasonable for hon. Members on this side to talk of the good intentions of the Government, having been assailed with nonsense about the bad intentions of the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has freedom of speech in this place, arid long may it continue. But let us not go on the downward track which will convert the House of Commons from a free Parliament into some kind of Reichstag. We


should all take the strongest exception to that. Without using the word "sinister", which I think the hon. Gentleman employed in his speech, I believe that these indications or tendencies are dangerous for the future and have given rise for justifiable concern by my hon. Friends.
I should now like to deal with the serious arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, who has just returned. When challenged from this side on the argument which he was deploying, the hon. Gentleman quoted. quite fairly, certain sections of the Donovan Report, which some of us took the trouble to study when it came out. The hon. Gentleman was forced to admit, as a result of the exchanges which took place—the hon. Gentleman made a good-humoured and temperate speech; even if we disagreed with him, we liked his tone and manner—that the abuses referred to in passing by Donovan were very small in relation to the generality of trade union conduct, which is not under criticism.
We have one of the Law Officers of the Crown with us this evening. Indeed, we are honoured to have two senior Members of the Cabinet sitting on the Government Front Bench at the same time—[An HON. MEMBER: "Only one is in the Cabinet."]—Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will work his way up. If I might have the Solicitor-General's attention, I should like to put this point to him. One can excuse the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, who is still—I say this without disrespect—an apprentice in this place, for making a slip; but for a senior Member of the Government to try to blast us with a lot of technical arguments and to argue that to legislate on this scale to govern trade union conditions and practice is legislating for the odd cases of abuse and hardship, is quite wrong. It has always been a constitutional principle, accepted by experienced Members, that the worst kind of legislation is that which is directed against setting apart some minority. We cannot legislate for special cases in a matter like this. We must legislate for the generality of cases.
It is wrong for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to put forward this kind of legislation on the pretext that it is to deal with unions which have defective

rule books and abuses of the rules by perhaps dissident members of unions. When a man is doing something drastic or taking action on an industrial matter. the first thing—

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose——

Mr. Price: I do not wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me. When a man does something drastic in connection with an industrial matter, the first thing that he does is perhaps to give notice or that to give notice that he is going on strike. But he does not go round to some office and say, "May I have the rules?" and look up the position.
If I decide to do something in the House which I am convinced is right, I do not go running to the Library before I make a speech. I never speak in the House unless I know what I am talking about. I am open to challenge on any statement I may make recklessly, but I try not to make such statements.
Rational trade unionists are the product of over 150 years of sacrifice and self-help. The great shibboleth of the Tory Party is that we should not have a regimented State: the State must not do everything and people must, by their own efforts, lift themselves from the disabilities and hardships which they have suffered in previous generations. The trade union movement has been doing that. I think that it should have earned credit for doing that rather than that the Government should seek to make it accept some monolithic legislation which will put it in a straitjacket subject to the authority of politicians. I cannot see any force in the argument that the trade union movement will not be put by the Bill in a straitjacket subject to poltical direction. With the kind of sophisticated modern State which is operating now, the registrar will certainly be subject, if not to direction from the Government, at least to [heir blowing down his neck and putting pressure on him to do things according to the policy of the Government.
I have made this intervention rather longer than it ought to have been, but at least I have the feeling that hon. Gentlemen have been listening. They may not agree with me, but I can tell when they are listening. It is not always the midnight-oil speeches to which attention is paid. I have heard a lot of


heresy from both sides of the Committee——

Mr. Redmond: We woke up because we thought that the hon. Gentleman was finishing.

Mr. Price: If hon. Gentlemen wish me to go on for a long time, I shall find no difficulty. However, we are under the guillotine and the longer I speak the less time there will be to discuss other matters. I have to draw the line fairly equitably between my desire to have a few points recorded and the need to have time to discuss other matters later.
The Government have much expertise and many boffins behind the scenes, propagandists and advocates specially trained to run round the country delivering these turgid briefs. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite coming here with their turgid briefs and putting them forward. They may put them forward to the Primrose League or sometimes to Tory women's organisations in the backwoods of the county shires—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) if she wishes to intervene. I am delighted that she has come into the Chamber to listen to the debate.
I am being provoked. While I want to be reasonable and allow time for my hon. Friends to deliver their speeches, if hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to go on I can continue for a long time on this theme, because the Amendment and the Clause deal with a matter of the utmost importance.
I know something about rule books, because in a previous incarnation, I functioned as a national officer of one of the great unions of this country. One of the tasks which came under my supervision and authority was handling, on a national scale, the legal activities of the union. I have spent many hours ploughing through rule books to see what they mean.
For anybody to suggest that a trade union, which may be a composite body consisting of many other unions which have amalgamated, ought to have some kind of regimented, rubber-stamped, standard rule book handed down on a plate from the Mount of Olives by some—[interruption.] I am not sure whether it is the Mount of Olives, and I am sorry if I have made a sublimal joke but I am

sure that hon. Members have got the point. To imagine that this can be done by legislation is to fly in the face of human experience.
This legislation is denying independence to the mass of sensible trade unionists and elected leaders. Whatever may be the fate of this Clause and of the Bill, however it comes out of the sausage machine at the end of the day, I hope it will be realised that the resistance of my hon. Friends and myself to it is based on the fact that the trade union movement is not prepared to accept the penalties and handicaps which will undermine its authority as an independent body which has been created by the sacrifice, endeavour and intelligence of many generations of people before us, and we, as its guardians, will raise our voices and protest throughout the course of the Bill's progress through the House.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): One wonders whether there is any other institution, or set of institutions, in this country in respect of which so many words could have been uttered over so many hours asserting the one simple proposition, "Leave us alone. We are untouchable. Parliament should do nothing whatsoever to affect us".—[Interruption.]—Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) want to say something?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Solicitor-General talked about leaving people alone. I was suggesting that he could have mentioned his own profession. He could have referred to the Law Society, to the Bar Council and so on. No one suggests that they should be hamstrung and be subject to the control suggested in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: The Courts Bill is being considered in Committee upstairs, which demonstrates the extent to which the allocation of functions in the legal profession is subject to the determination of the House. The House considers administration of justice Bills almost every other year. It has considered Measures relating to solicitors, and a whole range of matters. We are not now debating the legal profession.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is the whole point.

The Solicitor-General: What I am submitting is that there is no other institution in respect of which such a chain of argument could have been advanced, adding up, at the end of the day, to a prescription for inertia.

Mr. Onme: This is an important subject.

The Solicitor-General: I do not challenge the importance of the subject, but I suggest that there is an astonishing basis of misapprehension underlying some of the arguments and propositions which we have heard from the other side of the Committee. To talk about political straitjackets, about a prescription for totalitarianism, about suppression of free trade unionism, about the first steps towards a corporate State, and about regimented rules being brought down from the Mount of Olives, is to allow sensible discussion of these important matters to take leave of its senses.
To come back to what we are really debating, it is the principle that the organs of the Labour movement in this country, the trade unions should, in order to achieve the full standing rights, and the new rights conferred by this legislation, be required to register. That is all. It is that central principle——

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. John Mendelson rose——

The Solicitor-General: If hon. Members will allow me to develop my case, I shall come to the points which have exercised them for so long.

Mr. Orme: What are the new rights?

The Solicitor-General: We debated them yesterday.
Is it, or is it not—and this is the purpose of the first group of Amendments—right that the full role and standing of trade unions should be confined to those which register? Which other major institution, so powerful, so long-established in our society, would be arguing before this or any other Committee that it is wrong for the legislature, on behalf of society, to begin laying down standards to be achieved by that institution?

Mr. James A. Dunn: The Conservative Party, for one.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

The Solichtor-General: Almost every—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

The Solicitor-General: Almost every kind of institution we can think of is subject, as a matter of course, to registration. If an hon. Member comes to the House and seeks to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule saying that it is right that fly-by night travel agents should be registered so that in the name of society we can have some protection in respect of them, he is acclaimed as a hero. With this new generation of matters such as travel agents, if someone wishes to register pre-school play-groups which are serving small aspects of society, registration is accepted as a matter of course. We are here concerned with bodies—

Mrs. Renée Short: They do not have rule books.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) made an important point. He said that we are not legislating in a vacuum, and that these bodies do not exist in a vacuum. I quite agree. The bodies with which we are concerned have power. It is a power which they will retain to inflict great damage upon society, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said, because of the interdependence of our society, to inflict damage upon each other, upon each others' members and upon individuals. They have that power to that extent because of the framework of law with which they have grown up. It is the framework of law which goes back, perhaps, to 1871, and certainly to 1906, which has given them the position of power and authority which they hold, and it is that which we say, at the very least, entitles the Committee and the House to consider the basis upon which that power should continue.

Mr. Loughlin: Surely the Solicitor-General is under a misapprehension in using the argument which I deployed, because the trade unions—I use his words—do not exist to inflict damage on any body or any section of the community. The rules of the unions are not designed, either deliberately or accidentally, to inflict damage.

Mr. Orme: They preclude it.

Mr. Loughlin: What the Solicitor-General has to address his mind to is not the question of the rules but what happens in industry when the Government have made all their good rules.

The Solicitor-General: If I may revert to the central, over-simple point, there are a thousand institutions in our society which do not exist to inflict damage: limited companies, registered partnerships, travel agents, hairdressers—none of these organisations exist to inflict damage. But as a matter of course, they are all subject to scrutiny by the House on behalf of society and subject to such rules as society seeks to lay down in respect of them for the protection of the wider national interest and of those who come into contact with them.
It is astonishing to see the extent to which the argument has been advanced from the other side of the Committee, saying that this is some treading, by this the mother of Parliaments, on hallowed ground. It may be right, as one hon. Gentleman opposite said, that the Labour Party in this House has not for a long time been as united as it has been in its opposition to the Bill. I would venture to assert that in so far as it finds itself united on this subject, never before has it found itself so isolated from the great mass of informed opinion in this country.

Mr. Orme: What evidence is there for saying that?

Mr. John Mendelson: Does not the Solicitor-General realise that to begin by saying that trade unions are organisations which can inflict great damage, is to give away the whole bias? Surely the starting point is that trade unions are organisations which have some authority because they protect the interests of their members and facilitate industrial processes.

The Solicitor-General: I accept that completely. It is common ground on the benches opposite, and we do not challenge it. I accept that the trade unions exist to serve their members, and they play an important part in the community. What appears to be in issue, though I cannot understand why, is that, like every other institution, they are capable of inflicting damage on the community, on their members and on other unions. One man's strike is another man's lay-off. In his book, Will Paynter argues a cogent case

for the way in which the consequences of damage inflicted by the Labour movement unregulated are now so much more serious than they were years ago.

Mr. Orme: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members know quite well that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, they must resume their seats. What is more, when two hon. Members rise at the same time, they make matters more difficult for the Chair.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman is leading with his chin.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose——

The Solicitor-General: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Heffer: The Solicitor-General will not give way.

The Solicitor-General: That is apparent.

Mr. Orme: Tell us why Will Paynter is not on the C.I.R.

The Solicitor-General: I am not dealing with that at the moment.
To come back to this point, just how far out of touch is it possible for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to get from the facts of reality? Is it seriously disputed as a foundation for this debate that organised labour, in a framework of law that is inadequate and does not secure for it the rights that we are trying to secure for it, by taking industrial action unnecessarily in pursuit of unfair and unreasonable objectives, is capable of inflicting harm on society which we should seek to avert if we can?

Mr. Skinner: I am very interested in this point about trade unions and shop stewards inflicting harm. What kind of harm was inflicted by the shop stewards who came to this House on Monday? Those who came to this House from Rolls-Royce did not come to inflict harm. They came with a begging bowl, hoping for assistance from this Government. What harm can they inflict? The only harm that they can inflict is when the market forces suit them, which is very rare.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that it was common ground that we in this House and the country are concerned with the problem of industrial relations. Disputes between powerful unions and between powerful unions and managements can cause widespread disruption. We should all strive to avoid it. That is an objective which commends itself to the country and to my right hon. and hon. Friends, even if not to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
I come to the central point of registration. We have heard two arguments advanced from the benches opposite. I am not sure where we stand. To some, the whole concept of registration is intolerable because it embodies the idea of a State licence to operate.

Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.

The Solicitor-General: To that, we get, "Hear, hear".

Mr. McNamara: It is compulsory registration.

The Solicitor-General: There are three stages——

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman should get his facts straight.

The Solicitor-General: We are saying that, to achieve the status of a trade union in law, that body should register. That was asserted simply by the Donovan Commission. It was asserted simply in "In Place of Strife". Is it the proposition that, to become a trade union, a body has to register to which objection is taken, or is it taken only to the terms on which registration is here proposed?

Mr. Orme: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

The Solicitor-General: Not at this moment. We may be making some common ground——

Mr. Orme: On this point——

The Solicitor-General: If it is only the terms which are objected to, we have got at least somewhere. We acknowledge the desirability of registration to acquire status. That is common ground between us.

[Mr. J.C. JENNINGS in the Chair]

Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that, under the 1871 Act, unions have a right to register or not, but the majority of the unions, because there are certain benefits, in regard to money and so forth, are registered? But if a union is not registered, it is not penalised, as will happen under the Bill. In other words, it is to the union's advantage to register, and most unions are, but they do not have to register. That is what we mean by a voluntary system.

8.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is a fair observation, but that which was good enough for 1871 is not necessarily good enough for 1971. When we have seen, over recent years, the Donovan Commission and the right hon. Lady both asserting that, in order to acquire the status of a trade union, a body should be required to register and exposed to various sanctions, we are surely entitled to regard that as reasonably common ground.
The only argument, I understand, is as to the nature of the sanctions. The Donovan Commission majority said that registration to qualify as a union should be secured by withdrawing immunities under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. The Donovan Commission minority recommendation said that it should be secured by financial sanctions. It was the latter which recommended itself to the right hon. Lady. We put forward a selection of measures and we say that certain new rights shall be available only to registered unions, and that registered unions shall comply with other obligations. I cannot see the room for reasonable argument, as it is looked at from the outside world, over the desirability and sense of registration of bodies which claim this status of trade unions.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps saying that the trade unions are being given new rights. What is he giving us in this Bill which is new? What is he giving to registered unions which he is not giving to organised groups of workers which are not registered under the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: We have spent some days, over several weeks, debating this, but to answer it in a sentence—all


the rights of recognised procedures which we spent yesterday discussing: important new rights. Hon. Members opposite complained yesterday that the new rights which we were discussing were not made available to unregistered bodies. They cannot on the following day deny the existence of those rights about which they were arguing——

Mr. Orme: That is a debating point.

The Solicitor-General: One cannot be blamed for making a debating point of some value in the course of a debate. 
What in fact are we attaching to the concept of registration? In essence, requirements as to the rules of those bodies, protection and remedies for the members of those bodies against the unions themselves and responsibility by the unions to conform to standards which arc to be laid down by the House for a modern society—[Interruption.] The standards to be laid down are contained in Clause 61, the guiding principles. The distinction between the guiding principles and those dealt with in Schedule 3 is that Schedule 3 lists those matters in respect of which rules must say something, whereas Clause 61 sets down the standards to which the rules must conform on selected matters of particular importance. They are guiding principles for the guidance of organisations, registered or unregistered.
Again, I suggest to the Committee that it cannot be asserted that there is here something monstrous and wicked in the idea of requiring unions to register as such in this way. Nor is there something wrong, as one hon. Member opposite suggested, in trying to attach a corporate status to unions.
What is underlying this is paragraph 782 of the Report of the Donovan Commission:
Law apart, we do not think that there is any doubt that most people look upon a trade union as something different from the members who compose it.
The Commission then quotes Professor Dicey as saying:
When a body of 20, or 2,000 or 200,000 men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted.

The Commission continues in this way:
We think this is true; but even if it were not, we think that the time has come to clear away the uncertainties and obscurities which surround the position of trade unions at law, and that they should be granted corporate personality. In this we find ourselves at one with the Society of Labour Lawyers.
784. … We think the better solution is the grant of corporate status to all trade unions. This will involve a concomitant liability to register, but the particulars to be registered would be common to all unions.
Following this through on to paragraphs 791 and 792, this is not a voluntary register as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West suggests. It is made perfectly clear in paragraph 791:
… a law which obliged the unregistered trade union in future to become registered would not, in our opinion, impose a hardship, work any injustice, or deprive unregistered unions of some valuable liberty.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. I usually deprecate long quotations. This quotation is getting quite lengthy.

The Solicitor-General: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Jennings. I am anxious to develop the argument. It is not a continuous quotation. Paragraph 792 of the Report contains these words:
The definition of a trade union would be exclusively related to registered unions. New unions would be required to register within a stated period after formation.
Going on from that to the requirements as to union rules, once again looking at the Donovan Report, and indeed at "In Place of Strife", they are to be requirements in respect of what union rules must deal with. Donovan makes it perfectly clear that the registrar is to have the power to ensure that the rules comply with the standards to be laid down by the House of Commons and that unions are to have time in which to see that their rules comply with those standards. This is the principle we are talking about.

Mr. John Fraser: The Solicitor-General said, I think—perhaps he will confirm this, because there is some difficulty here—that Clause 61—the guiding principles is intended to apply to an organisation of workers whether it registers or not. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that? Is that why it appears as a Clause and not in Schedule 3?

The Solicitor-General: That is perfectly right. Clause 61(1) says:
The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding principles in the conduct of every organisation of workers, other than federations of workers' organisations.
We believe that these principles are not unreasonable principles to lay down for the conduct of any organisation of this importance relating to the individuals belonging to it.
Can it be argued that it is wrong to lay down standards saying that a member or a person who seeks work and who is reasonably well qualified should be entitled to secure admission to a union membership of which is necessary for him to his job? This is the first principle. We cannot see that it can possibly be justified that an organisation should be entitled unreasonably to exclude from membership a man who is qualified for the work which that union regulates.
This again is at the heart of the approach of the Donovan Commission, because Donovan said that this does not happen very often, but that it is possible, without regulation of unions' rules, for a man to be hounded out of a job. Donovan quotes examples. We can all think of cases. There was the case of Mr. Bonsor years back who, having been expelled from his union, died scraping the barnacles off Brighton Pier because there was no set of guiding principles relating to the relations between him and his union.
Is it to be suggested that it is wrong for a man to have the right, on reasonable conditions and on reasonable notice, to terminate his membership of an organisation? We put that forward as a condition to be attached to registration.

Mr. Orme: Yes, we do object very much.

The Solicitor-General: That is interesting, and the Committee will note it. But what kind of principle is it which suggests that members should not have the right to resign from organisations the freedom and voluntary nature of which hon. Members opposite are trying to defend?

Mr. McNamara: Here is an example. A collective agreement is coming to an end. There is notice of a strike. A strike is to take place. A couple of people

want to "scab" on the rest of their fellows by saying, "We resign from the union, and we do not accept this". I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) had driven the point of that difference home to hon. Members opposite. What is more, such people could rejoin the day after.

The Solicitor-General: It would be a question for the rules of a particular union as to how far the conditions and length of notice given were reasonable in that case.
To return to the point of principle, what kind of organisation is it which seeks to lock someone into the ranks of its free members so that he may not resign therefrom? How can it be objected in those terms that somebody should not have the right, given reasonable notice and complying with any reasonable conditions, to terminate his membership? This is the difference of approach between the two sides of the Committee.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked a question, and I respond to his invitation. We want to help him. We think that he is honestly flogging away at a loser. Why, he asks, should not a person have the right to resign? It concerns us to hear one of this country's leading and distinguished lawyers enunciating that principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that, if he resigns from the Bar Council and does not pay his Bar fees, he will not be able to earn a living as a lawyer; he will be dependent entirely on his parliamentary salary, and a damn sight poorer than he is now. That is the answer.

The Solicitor-General: If that point is put forward seriously, it must be dealt with seriously.

Mr. Price: Certainly.

The Solicitor-General: I practised at the Bar by virtue of qualifications which I secured from an institution, in the same way as anyone else taking professional qualifications secures them. Quite distinct from the qualifications which I gained, there is our trade union, the General Council of the Bar, to which I subscribe and to which I belong of free choice, from which I may resign at my free


choice, and on the executive of which I sat for a number of years, listening to some of my colleagues say that 90 per cent. membership of our trade union is not good enough. In that setting, as here, I argued that it was intolerable for the executive of that union to begin using coercive measures to secure the membership of the remaining 10 per cent. I could resign from that union and continue to practise, just as solicitors——

Mr. Price: The Bar Council, not the union.

The Solicitor-General: But the Bar Council is the union. Solicitors can resign from membership of the Law Society and join, as they have done, the British Legal Association, and continue to practise in their profession.

Mr. Orme: May I return to the question of a person resigning from his union? The principle here is as important to us as was the principle on Clause 5, the right to be a non-unionist. What we say is that the members in a factory who have by their organisation, their combination, their subscriptions and their fees, worked and obtained the conditions which they have may say to a worker, "We will not work with non-unionists". They have the right to say that that person, if he wants to remain within the industry, should be a member of the union. It is not forcing him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite want the non-unionist to have the right to be able to work and to have legal——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This is a very long intervention. We cannot have a speech as an intervention.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry, Mr. Jennings. I have made the point.

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: If I may come back to the point I was making——

Mr. Orme: Answer that point.

The Solicitor-General: I will come to it. Until the hon. Gentleman interrupted I was asserting that people holding professional qualifications laid down independently are in no sense to be compared in this argument with those who do or do not belong to unions. This applies to any occupation. For example, society

lays down certain standards of competence to be achieved by barristers, doctors, colliery managers and shot-firers. They have to obtain specific statutory qualifications. If they do, they should be free to develop their skills and use their qualifications doing the work for which they are qualified. We also think that they should be encouraged to belong to trade unions and that agreements should be made with their employers to encourage them. But we stop short of the last point, the power of the trade union organisation to expel them on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds, to deny them the right to resign on reasonable notice. It is not unfair or unreasonable for society to lay down standards to which those organisations must conform. It is to that end that we think it not unreasonable for registration to be the foundation of the status of trade unions.

Mr. Harold Walker: Clause 5(1) gives the individual an unqualified right
to be a member of such union as he may choose.
Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman by these two provisions allowing any individual the statutory right to hop in and out of any such union as he may wish, irrespective of the circumstances?

The Solicitor-General: The concept of someone hopping in and out of a union is slightly bizarre. The right to resign is one to be exercised on giving reasonable notice and complying with reasonable conditions. The right not to admit, or the obligation to admit, is by reference to reasonable conditions. There is no doubt that if hopping in and out were a hazard it could be fairly regulated in that way.
I do not want to deal with the detail of that now. I return to the central theme. The idea of registration for these large organisations was put forward in Donovan and was asserted in "In Place of Strife". There may be room for argument about the particular conditions and particular points, but we assert with confidence that the time has come for unions, defined, enjoying the position of power and privilege that they now enjoy, to be required to register, and that it is not an unreasonable provision to include at the centre of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied at all.

Mrs. Castle: It is entirely right that we should have had this protracted debate, because we are dealing with one of the central issues of principle of the Bill. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members on both sides have been anxious to take part in the debate. Tragically, this means that because of the guillotine we shall have about three hours to debate the details of the rest of this large number of Clauses, yet every time we probe the Government on the details a new facet of what they propose comes to light.
We have just had a very interesting revelation from the Solicitor-General, which has entirely undermined the whole moral tone of his previous argument.
The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), that the principles laid down in Clause 61 are to apply to unregistered unions. I ask hon. Members opposite to think about what that means. I should like almost a moment's silence for the enormity of it to sink in. We nearly despair on this side of the Committee of ever getting through to hon. Members opposite just to what they are lending their names and their reputations. We gave up the Solicitor-General a long time ago. After all, he is the smoothest possible propagandist for his own brain child. He is like a besotted mother who cannot see a single fault in her own offspring. Of course we cannot get through to him. But we still retain hope of getting through to his hon. Friends, particularly since some glimmerings of comprehension have emerged in their speeches. I want to ask them to think for a moment about what he has just admitted.
It is not, in the case of Clause 61, a question of saying, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said with such panache, that if unions want to enjoy the new privileges given by the Bill they should be prepared to register and accept control over their rules, because an unregistered union has no privilege at all. It has no bargaining rights; it cannot be a promoter of its own rights in an agency shop; it has no status in the bargaining unit or as a bargaining unit. All this was admitted to us yesterday. We know that, far from having privileges, an unregistered union is heaped with penalties under the Bill.
Again, it is not a question of saying, in the moving appeals to the general public of which we get so much from the Government, that it is necessary to protect society from powerful bodies which can, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, inflict grave damage. How can an unregistered union inflict damage? It has no legal right to strike at all under the Bill. It has no right to engage in any kind of irregular industrial action.

Mr. David Mitchell: Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.

Mrs. Castle: That is so. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) shakes his head. He does not know what he is lending his name to or what he is voting for. The simple fact is that, if an unregistered union goes on strike, the protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act is withdrawn. If an unregistered union goes on strike, it faces in specific terms under the Bill unlimited financial damages.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the right hon. Lady explain the situation of an unregistered union which gives notice under its own procedure agreement? Will she say whether in that case there is any liability attaching at all?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is straining the normal definition of the right to strike. The Government themselves have to admit that it is almost impossible to have a strike without a breach of contract of employment. What they are doing is taking away something far more than just the protection of Section 3. The protection of Section 3, which gave to unions the present traditional immunity for action in furtherance of a trade dispute, does not apply under this Bill to an unregistered trade union. If such a union tries to operate such a strike, it faces actual unlimited damages. So how can an unregistered union inflict this grave damage that we were all told was the threat hanging over our heads? It is a body which has neither privileges nor power to inflict grave damage on the public interest.
Yes, despite that, the Government insist on the right under Clause 61 to tell an unregistered union whom it shall admit, what rights of terminating membership it shall give to its members, and, above


all, on applying to it the iniquitous provisions of subsection (7) which say that even though unregistered, it must write into its rules the freedom of its members to defy the Government's views, the Government's definition of an unfair industrial practice, the Government's definition of a closed shop, the Government's definition of the 100 per cent. union shop, the Government's definition of sympathetic action, as its right to exist.
I say to hon. Members opposite advisedly that this is sheer control for control's sake and this is why we say that the Bill reveals that we have a totalitarian Government and a totalitarian Bill, and that is no exaggeration. I suggest that hon. Members go away and talk it over and check it and think about it and consider the sort of high-handed actions with which they are associating themselves.
As for the rest; as usual, in a perfunctory speech, the Solicitor-General begged the whole question of the registration of unions. He said that no other major organisation would object to this public scrutiny. That is not the question. The trade union movement is subject to public scrutiny and the law of the land. There are more Questions in the House and debates in the House about the activities of trade unions than anything else. Of course they are subject to the law of the land. The question we are debating tonight is the trade unions' objection to what the Government propose.
I am confident that hon. Members opposite have not grasped the central theme of this part of the Bill and its meaning. What do the Government want and what do they seek to do through this part of the Bill? It is apposite to begin by saying that the practice of other countries has been quoted to us time and time again in justification of what the Government are doing, but there is not one Western industrial nation with registration provisions of this kind in its law, with this kind of control by the Registrar, with this scope of power of the registrar, with this discretionary action given to the registrar and, after him, to the courts. This is the exclusive brainchild of the Government.
We are told, and this is becoming the whole tenor of the speeches of the Solicitor-

General, that this is all in the Donovan Report and all in "In Place of Strife". I repeat my offer to the Solicitor-General—if he thinks so much of "In Place of Strife," why does he not base his Bill on it? The answer is that we should have had something not designed to exercise a tyranny over the trade union movement, but generally designed to strengthen it. The fact is that the Donovan Report and the Bill are as different as chalk from cheese, and that is why the Government have to misrepresent it.
9.15 p.m.
At every stage of the Government's argument, when they ought to have been justifying these tyrannical new principles, we have merely had a misrepresentation of Donovan as the sole argument. We have had it over the imposition of procedure agreements. We have been told that it was all in Donovan, but when we turn up Donovan we find the contrary. We find that Donovan was never. under any circumstances, present or future, in favour of enforcing agreements that had not first of all been voluntarily agreed. I quoted the other day from Donovan, and that is on the record.
We have been told lies about Donovan on the imposition of procedure agreements. In the same way the position over registration is being deliberately distorted. Donovan was never in favour of making a condition of registration the acceptance of rules that the union had not agreed. That is the great dividing line, that is the great gulf that comes between us, the essential and enduring difference, and that is what we mean by a voluntary system.
We cannot impose on trade unions rules which they have not agreed and above all we cannot impose on them rules which do violence to their own innate principles and tell them, "Swallow it or die". That is what the Government are doing here. Neither Donovan nor the Labour Government in "In Place of Strife" ever made the compulsory registration of trade unions a central part of the industrial relations problem. The Solicitor-General gave us the evidence for this when he read from Donovan pointing out that the whole concept of compulsory legislation started from the idea that it might help unions to give them corporate status. It flows from that


that they would have to register. It did not flow from any necessity of the industrial relations situation; it did not flow from any evidence that the unions were abusing their power either in relation to their own members or in relation to the community.
It could not be put more explicitly than at paragraph 622 of Donovan. Here Donovan points out that the research people had endeavoured to find out what evidence there was of abuse by trade unions as a result of the fact that they were free to draw up their own rules. Donovan concluded as follows:
But the general conclusion can, we think, be drawn with reasonable safety that if the questioning of some 500 trade unionists and 400 non-unionists selected at random yields so little in the way of adverse criticism it is unlikely that abuse of power by trade unions is widespread.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Read on.

Mrs. Castle: I agree he said that on occasions it happens. [Laughter.] Of course. It is essential in the light of all this talk about the power to wield damage on the community or on individual members that Donovan's basic conclusion should be put on the record. No one on this side of the Committee has ever argued that trade union rules are perfect or that trade union behaviour is perfect. We do not have to, because there is not a single organisation in the community that can go into a white sheet of perfection. Let us be realistic and face up to that. The question is, what is the size of this little nut for which the Government are bringing up this great hammer?
There was never any question in the Donovan Report of trying to dictate the content or even the principle of union rules. The Donovan Report pointed out that 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership was already in registered organisations on a voluntary basis. It said that the rules were not very onerous and that they needed to be extended in clarity and perhaps in scope, but time and again it came back to the theme which the Government are violating, namely, that better safeguards for individual members must be achieved
without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances".

That is what is at issue and that is what the Government are violating.
Of course, this was the theme of "In Place of Strife". If the Secretary of State wants to hide behind "In Place of Strife", let him live up to the following principles. We said in paragraph 107:
'"The Royal Commission found no evidence of widespread abuse of union power.
We went on to say that we wanted the trade unions
to conduct their business according to clear and comprehensive rules, and to deal fairly with any dispute between the union or its officers and the individual member.
But we went on:
This must be done in ways that are compatible with trade union internal self-government and independence.
We said in paragraph 109:
Unions will be free to frame rules to meet their own requirements and the Industrial Relations Bill will not propose that there should be provision for them to be challenged except on the ground that they do not adequately cover the subjects specified.
That is what the Donovan Report said in its section on rules. It pointed out that there must be rules which deal adequately with the problem of elections and how a ballot is conducted if one is held and which deal adequately with rights of appeal, and so on. No one disputes that that is the end. There is nothing unacceptable in those principles. I, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends, would go further. I do not believe that there is any objection in principle to compulsory registration. It depends on how it is done and for what purposes. I am one of those who, as a back bencher, pressed for a long time for the compulsory registration of hairdressers because it is in their interests and in the interests of the community; and they want it. It is Governments who have always refused to concede it.
Of course, compulsory registration can be a good or an evil thing according to the conditions imposed and the purposes for which it is introduced. But there is no point in having compulsory registration if one's aims can ix., achieved in some other way. It is a bad principle to have compulsion for compulsion's sake. The fact is that we are achieving our aims in another way, and that is why our Industrial Relations Bill did not include provisions for compulsory registration.


The hon. Member for Basingstoke was right when he quoted from a survey into union rules conducted by the T.U.C. He seemed to think that it strengthened his case because the T.U.C. said that a lot of rules were defective. It does not strengthen his case; it strengthens ours. Our case is that long before the Government produced their Bill, way back in June, 1969, stimulated by the Donovan Report into voluntary action, the T.U.C. proceeded to issue circular after circular to its members. 1 have them here. We might put them in the Vote Office and then some hon. Members might get some enlightenment of what the T.U.C. is doing about trade union rules.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has taken my point. All I said was that this indicated the need for a change in union rules, but the right hon. Lady will surely admit that those recommendations of the T.U.C. have not been put into effect. If they had been put into effect, the sort of rules which were quoted earlier would not now still be on the union rule book.

Mrs. Castle: Of course, there is need for change in union rules. The T.U.C. admits it and has never said that the system is perfect and untouchable. It has said only that if we are to remain a free society we must do this for ourselves. This is the difference between us, and this is what was said in Donovan.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) asked what was the difference in the T.U.C. overhauling rules, or taking internal discipline measures, or deciding who had the right to call a strike and somebody else doing these things. There is, of course, a difference in principle. First and foremost, there are the iniquitous principles of Clause 61. The Government are saying that by law these repugnant principles are to be written into trade union rules. The big difference, which has been overlooked, lies in the policing power given to the Registrar. It is this which is unique and new and it is this the Government have never explained to the House. This is what the Government hide, and the fact that they hide it reveals their true aim. The Government's true aim is not that the union should be well-run in the interests of its members, but that it should be run in the interests of Government

policy. What the T.U.C. objects to is that the Registrar will control not only the content of rules, but their operation. The House must weigh the implications of Clauses 73, 77 and 79 in which the registrar can go to court and demand the cancellation of a union's registration because it does not fulfil that vague and dangerous phrase,
any other requirements imposed by the Registrar".
Then there is Clause 11, which is the bother-causer Clause, under which any person who was, is or wants to become, a member of a union can make application to the Registrar and say, "That union is breaking the rules or breaking the registrar's principles." That complaint can be taken to the court and backed by legal sanctions. Or there is Clause 79, the "spying" Clause, under which, if the registrar has reason to suspect that there has been a serious or persistent breach of rules or action in serious contravention of the principles of Clause 61, he can haul a union before the court.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. We arranged for a wide debate on this series of Amendments and passing reference to Clauses 77 and 79 is perfectly in order as long as it is just a passing reference.

Mrs. Castle: I have made a very brief reference indeed, Mr. Jennings, but it is essential to the argument to say that it is the policing of these rules by the registrar which is one of the most iniquitous practices to which we object. It is this which gives significance to paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 which, unfortunately, we shall never have time to examine in detail.
Of course, the rules should say who has authority to call a strike. The T.U.C. says this, and it has circularised the unions saying that they should have that in the rules. Indeed, the T.U.C. went further. It said that it should be laid down in the rules who should have the right to conduct a strike. It is an entirely different thing to include such rules in a voluntary system rather than in a system which at every turn is regulated by legal sanctions. It must be remembered under these Clauses that a union can be taken to the Industrial Court for a breach of this rule and it will face cancellation of registration by order of the court to


prevent a continuance of the breach of that rule. So that all freedom of action by a union in, for example, a Pilkington situation, has been forfeited under this group of Clauses. Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot or will not see any difference between that and Donovan, he has forfeited all credibility in industrial relations.
9.30 p.m.
This policy puts a monstrously unfair burden on the shop steward. It is impregnated with the assumption that the only people who ever cause strikes are the shop stewards, the unions, or the workers. Never at any point is recognition made that strike after strike is caused by management, not only because it refuses recognition or dismisses unfairly, but because it is bad management.
I was given an example only the other day by the district secretary of one of our major unions working in a key plant in the motor industry. He told me of an occasion on which he had to negotiate with his local management on the duration of an unofficial strike. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have no idea what happens in industry. Here was a case where conditions were bad. The men made a complaint not about pay, but to get local conditions rectified. Because, in this multi-plant company, management had not delgated authority for action down to local management level, the local manager had to say to the union, "Bring the lads out and they will soon move at headquarters and give me authority to meet your complaint, which I think is justified.

fled". So they negotiated about how short a period of unofficial strike would be necessary for the men to get a legitimate grievance regularised. This happens time and again in industry.

The Bill puts no responsibilities and penalties on management. The Bill and this provision has been in the minds of Conservative lawyers since 1959. It was first born in "A Giant Strength" in 1959. It was there as long ago as that. Twelve years ago the lawyers of the Conservative Party were spelling out how we ought to have this type of registration and regulation. This was not at a time when according to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State the unions were too powerful. This was the period when he said that they were so weak that the closed shop was justified.

But it was already the policy of the Solicitor-General, who is now in a position to carry it out and thrust it upon us. The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the debate today because the Bill is not conceived in terms of improving industrial relations. If it were, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to deal with this important section of the debate. It is a lawyer's brainchild. It was a tragic day for the Conservative Party and for this country when the Secretary of State put his own more practical judgment in pawn to lawyers who could not see beyond their noses.

Question put, That the Amendment he made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 302.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[9.33 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davidson, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Denzil (LLlanelly)


Atkinson, Norman
Cant, R. B.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnes, Michael
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, S. D. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnett, Joel
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Dempsey, James


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Dormand, J. D.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Booth, Albert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Driberg, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cronin, John
Dunn, James A.




Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rankin, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leonard, Dick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Ellis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts,Rt. Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roper, John


Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


C-alpem, Sir Myer
McCune, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John
Sillars, James


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Gourley, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Strang, Gavin


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Horan, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Ahertillery)


Houghton, Rt. Nil, Douglas
Molloy, William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Eric G.


Irvine,Rt. Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oram, Bert
Watkins, David


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (K'stortion-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Barry (Flint, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Kinnock, Neil
Pentland, Norman



Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamond, James
Prescott, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Latham, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Astor, John
Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Channon, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyd-Carpenter, Fit. Hn. John
Chapman, Sydney


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Churchill, W. S.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clark, William (Surrey. E.)


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bryan, Paul
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Cooke, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony
Coombs, Derek







Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pounder, Rafton


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Critchley, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crouch, David
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Curran, Charles
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick amp; L'mington)


Fidler, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Soref, Harold


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith



Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sutcliffe, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Goodhart, Phillip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Grylis, Michael
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Trew, Peter


Gurden, Harold

Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernle
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera
Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Havers, Michael
Heave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilkinson, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hopson, Emlyn
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)



Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Paul Hawkins and




Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 250.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, Peter


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
Knox, David


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Antony


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Loveridge, John


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Body Richard
Goodhart, Phillip
Maddan, Martin


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gorst, John
Magginnis, John E.


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Braine, Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Bray, Ronald
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brocklebank-Fowler, Chritopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray



Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Sailsbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie


Carlisle, Mark
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Cary, Sir Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Charles (Devizes)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Mudd, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom


Cooke, Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nott, John


Coombs, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Carnley


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cordle, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Critchley, Julian
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crouch, David
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Curran, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen.
James, David
Pounder, Rafton


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Reed Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Renton, Rt.Hn. Sir David




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek


Rost, Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Wall, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Simeons, Charles
Thatcher, Pt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Soref, Harold
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Speed, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Spence, John
Trew, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Sproat, Iain
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Albu, Austin
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
John, Brynmor



Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Joel
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lambie, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamond, James


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Leonard, Dick


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
McCartney, Hugh


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Concannon, J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cronin, John
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Deakins, Eric
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King







Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Roper, John
Tinn, James


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tuck, Raphael


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Wt. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George


Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Pendry, Tom
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Pentland, Norman
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Spearing, Nigel
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Prescott, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Pride, William (Rugby)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rankin, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Richard, Ivor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper aad


Roberts,Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnyr)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ashton: I have been asked by a body which does not have a representative in the House of Commons to bring to the Minister's attention certain anomalies which will arise on the clause.
Kangaroo courts and star chambers have been referred to today, but the Bill makes no mention of the disciplinary bodies which many employers' associations have. A group of us have tabled an Amendment to Schedule 3, which relates to suspensions or fines imposed on trade unionists by certain employers. Although the Bill provides that unions rules must be approved by the C.I.R., there is no provision that the rules of employers' associations must be so approved.
The rules I have in mind are those of "undisciplinary" bodies, from which a man can obtain a decision as to whether his suspension or dismissal is unfair.
Under the Bill it will be possible for there to be suspension for 14 days on full pay, followed by another period of suspension for 14 days, rather on the lines of the South Africa detention laws, and the suspension can be continued in perpetuity,

even on full pay, without the criticism of unfair dismissal being invoked. An anomaly could arise which is not catered for by the Clause.
I will give two examples of, behaviour which results indisciplinary action. A miner who takes a cigarette down a coalmine can be suspended, fined or dismissed. A trawlerman going on board drunk can be suspended or fined. In each case the trade union representative sits on the disciplinary body.
The Professional Footballers' Association is a trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. It works for a bona fide employers' associations from whose disciplinary court there is no appeal. The employers' association has a disciplinary body for the Football Association and the Football League on which the trade union—the Professional Footballers' Association—is not represented.
A professional footballer can be sent off during a game and, unless he pays the costs of the disciplinary court, he cannot even have a personal hearing. In other words, the court sits in secret without the Press being present and then may sentence him to be suspended for six weeks without pay or to a fine of up to £300 and often the trade unionist is not heard.
10.0 p.m.
That might be fine in the case of Georgie Best, Peter Osgood or someone like that who can afford it, but the Professional Footballers' Association is concerned about the lower-paid players in the fourth division who cannot afford it


but who may well have to face, as trade unionists, £70 or £80 costs of the body which sits to sentence them before they can have a personal hearing.
In our view—I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members opposite agree—that is a complete denial of any sort of freedom. In effect, it is worse than a kangaroo court because, at least, at a kangaroo court a man has the right to face his accusers. The professional footballer does not have that right unless he pays for it.
Often, outside evidence such as television films is not admitted in evidence. There have been occasions when the Football Association or the Football League has suspended players for life, taking away their livelihood, following a court case involving bribery or unfair practices, as in the case of Swan, Kaye and Layne. The Professional Footballers' Association in such cases has not even been allowed to represent them at the hearing. It has been a completely open and shut case, without proper representation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The truth is that every professional football player is permitted to be represented by someone who can speak for him, whether someone in the club or a representative of the Professional Footballers' Association. Furthermore, the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made is quite contrary to the truth, for, only the other day, when a player was suspended, there was a run-through of the television film in evidence.

Mr. Ashton: That is not generally true about the run-through of television films, although it is desired, and Mr. Cliff Lloyd, the secretary of the P.F.A., assures us that players are not allowed to have legal aid or to be legally represented.
It is easy in such circumstances for an employers' association like the Football Association or the Football League to run a disciplinary court which is totally unfair to the trade unionists involved. It may be said that the trade unionists concerned should take industrial action, should refuse to play, or should refuse to sign contracts. But in many cases they sign their contracts at the tender age of 16 or 17, and the registration is held by the club.
It is possible for the club to deprive a player of his livelihood simply because he said something on television which the employers do not like. There was the case of Jack Charlton who referred to a certain incident on television, using the same right of free speech which any hon. Member would wish to exercise, but he lost money by being dropped out of the England team because of it, and with no right of appeal because of a rule operated by an employers' association which said that he should not say anything which the employers thought might bring the game into disrepute.
We say that the rule books of employers' associations, too, should be open to examination by a reference to the C.I.R. Also, we draw attention to the suspension tactic, which is not prevalent in just one industry. Just before Christmas, there was the case of Mr. Terry Devey, reported in The Times and covered in full in my local newspaper, the Sheffield Morning Telegraph. I give credit to the investigation which it made.
Terry Devey is a shop steward who was paid £3,000 [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that hon. Members do not think that I am mentioning it because I am having a bitter battle about the "demo" the other night. Compensation of £3,000 was paid to Mr. Terry Devey afer a five-week dispute at Batchelors in Sheffield, which closely affected many of my constituents.
After the men had lost five weeks' strike pay, just before Christmas, the shop steward accepted £3,000 rehabilitation money, as it was called. I do not know whether it was provided in the employers' association rule book that one could break procedures which had been laid down or break the usual methods for settling disputes in that way. It is certainly a tactic which has never been used to my knowledge, and it is one which we do not want to see adopted again. Employers' associations' rule books are far from ideal.
I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I hope the Minister will look at the question of suspension, particularly when the trade unionists and the trade unions do not have proper rights of representation.

Mr. Swain: My hon. Friend does his homework very diligently in the main,


but apparently he has not done so this time. If a man takes a cigarette down a pit, that is a breach of the mines regulations. The manager deals with it, and if the trade union representative thinks that the sentence is too severe, he makes representations to the management. The trade union does not sit on the disciplinary court.

Mr. Ashton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that there are the powers to make representations to the management. That is part of the negotiating procedure. But if the Professional Footballers' Association feels that someone has been dealt with too harshly for telling the referee that he does not like his face, the association has no power to appeal against the sentence.
I hope that the Minister will look at this question of suspensions. It could lead to a South African-detention type of law, with 14 days, even on full pay, renewed every 14 days, without the employer bothering to dismiss the man or go to the court. Under the existing set-up, the matter could not be referred to the court, because the man would still be employed and the employer would still be paying his stamp and, in some cases, his basic wage. It is a major anomaly that should be examined.

The Solicitor-General: If I respond briefly, it is not out of any disrespect for the hon. Gentleman's point, because I know that it represents the same argument as underlies the Amendment he has tabled to Schedule 3.
The rôle played by employers' associations in some situations in disciplining employees is distinct from any provisions in the Bill. The provisions of the Clause are those which regulate and define employers' associations. Such an organisation vis-à-vis its own members must comply with the same guiding principles under Clause 65, and cannot be registered as an employers' association unless it is shown to have rules conforming to it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the fact that the employers' association, if registered, and even if not registered, is required to be fair to its own members, does not meet the situation he is putting where an association has disciplinary or semi-disciplinary powers over employees. This situation exists in some places, and

in some cases it is a subject either of collective bargaining or statutory regulation.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) spoke about the coal industry, where it is clear by Statute and collective bargaining that unfair disciplinary measures by the colliery manager can be challenged by the union on behalf of the worker concerned. if what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) says is right, it is plain that there is no comparable machinery in respect of the professional footballer vis-à-vis the association in question. It would be difficult to resolve that in the context of the Bill, because we are not here seeking to regulate relations between employers and individuals by setting up statutory schemes for discipline comparable, for examples, with that set up under the National Docks Labour Board. It requires a very special exercise of analysis to devise something like that.
Quite apart from the relevance, admissibility or acceptability of the hon. Gentleman's point in the context of this legislation, certainly the Department of Employment would be more than willing to meet such people as are appropriate to investigate further the facts underlying the point the hon. Gentleman raised to see whether, even if not within the Bill, it is something in respect of which help or guidance could be given.
I hope that, in the circumstances, that will be regarded as a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGISTRARS

The Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 737, in page 46, line 6, leave out subsection (2), standing in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the names of other hon. Members.

Mr. Heffer: I will be very brief, Sir Robert. I will merely say—under protest, not moved.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Page: I shall also make a very short speech on the question of the appointment of the registrar. We listened with great interest earlier to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who said that she accepted the view of registration and the idea that there should be some supervision of trade union rules in relation to accountancy, ballots, membership, election of officers and so on. It seems that the only parts of the Bill objected to would be Clause 61(7) and paragraphs 6 and 10 of Schedule 3. It seems, therefore, that it would be appropriate that the Registrar and his assistants should have legal training of some sort.
Can my hon. and learned Friend explain whether the whole of the responsibilities of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies as they apply to trade unions will be transferred to the new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations? I do not believe that this is made clear in the Bill. This move would be in connection with the investments of trade unions and employers associations and the handling of questions in connection with political funds and their rules. These are the main categories on which we would like elucidation.

Mr. Atkinson: May I recall our earlier discussions and ask the Solicitor-General to give a reply about the existence of friendly societies? Can he tell us whether an unregistered union can continue to register under the Friendly Societies Act in the way in which it has done over the years? Is an unregistered union prevented from doing so, even though a sectional exclusion is mentioned in the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), because he raised it in an earlier discussion. The position is that a trade union—indeed an organisation of workers registered or unregistered—is not under this Bill entitled to register under the Friendly Societies Act. This is as a result of Clause 140(1)(b).
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that the Bill transfers to the new Registrar of Trade Unions the functions of the present Registrar of Friendly Societies in relation to the Registrar

of trade unions the functions of the present Registrar of friendly Societies in relation to the registration of trade unions and in relation to trade unions. That is provided for by Schedule 7. It does not transfer what I might call the friendly society functions; although this does not prevent the possibility of the same person holding the registrarship of both friendly societies and trade unions. This is hiving-off the trade unions from the Registrar of Friendly Societies' work but not the other aspects. I hope that sufficiently explains the position.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: May we assume from what the Solicitor-General says that he is conscious of the amount of money involved for the average non-registered trade union, which would have to find an enormous sum of money?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I noted that point the hon. Gentleman made of that. The size of the funds will vary not only according to the size of the union, but according to a whole range of factors affecting its history, and the larger funds are associated with some of the older unions, as the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Atkinson: It could be £¾ million.

The Solicitor-General: I noted the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave. It is clear that an organisation which was unregistered could not qualify as a friendly society, but, once registered, it could immediately recover, or continue, all the benefits currently available under the Incomes and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, in respect of provident society funds, which is what it now enjoys. Under the 1871 Act, registration enables a trade union to enjoy the benefits of a friendly society in respect of provident funds, while registration under the Bill would carry the same consequences, but it would not be admissible for an unregistered organisation.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 253.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Balniel, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell,Lt,-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Body, Richard
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boscawen, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, Selwyn
Money, Ernie


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Braine, Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Talton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Heave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hay, John
Nott, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.C.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hicks, Robert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Channor, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Paisley, Mr Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner



Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John



Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Simeons, Charles


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fell, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Steel, David


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.).


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter







Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Tugendhat, Christopher
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
van Strauhenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Temple, John M.
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Waller, David (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker, Rt. Hrs. Peter (Worcester)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick



Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Tim Fortesque.


Trew, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard





NOES


Albu, Austen
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisie)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles


Ashby, Jack
Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bienkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilbert, Dr. John
MacPherson, Malcolm


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (r[...]gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamling, William
Milian, Bruce


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshlre, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Roes, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dunned, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rocterick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John







Rose, Paul B.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Taverne, Dick
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William


Sillars, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.



Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

Mr. Heller: I beg to move Amendment No. 741, in page 47, line 9, leave out 'reasonably well' and insert:
'eligible under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member and'.
In some respects, this Amendment is a continuation of the previous debate. We have reached the crucial Clause 61 which the trade union movement finds particularly obnoxious and which, as a result of the powers given to the Registrar by it, means we are at least heading for a corporate State. Certainly it is corporate State thinking.
We think that the words "reasonably well" are dangerous and can lead to a series of complications within unions and can dilute the character of some unions, particularly those which are craft based.
[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
10.30 p.m.
The trade union to which I belong, which is a craft organisation, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, has just united with the Association of Building Trade Technicians, with the bricklayers' union and with the painters' union. I say this for the benefit of those hon. Members opposite who believe that the trade union movement never makes any progress towards amalgamations and unifications. The facts are that within that united organisation we shall continue to have trade sections. For example, it would be unrealistic if a bricklayer was in exactly the section as a joiner or if a joiner was in the same section as a painter, and so on. That is so obvious it hardly needs to be said, but it is important to point the facts.
We do not regard the number of years of apprenticeship, be they four or five or whatever may be the figure, as magic figures. There has been some argument over the years about what the apprenticeship period should be. I myself was in apprenticeship for seven years. At one time it went down to five years, and has now gone down to four. We argue that the number of years can be varied according to the type of training required to carry out a particular job. Therefore, we

must be flexible in the matter of apprenticeship.
My organisation accepts workers who have been trained in Government training centres. There was some argument about this matter. Naturally, in areas of high unemployment workers are deeply concerned about workers trained in Government centres who can take work in a particular trade after only a short period of such training. But we have been flexible and have taken in those members in certain circumstances and conditions. However, the Clause says that we have to open our doors to an unlimited number of workers whether or not we wish to have them. The only requirement is that they should be "reasonably well qualified members of the organisation. What is meant by "reasonably well qualified"?
One hon. Member opposite said he felt a little disquiet over this point. The Solicitor-General mentioned in this connection people trained as solicitors or barristers. He said that to be a barrister one had to be a member of the Bar Council, but a person could operate in that profession if he had the qualifications and did not have to belong to a trade union. In our trade union we have to have definite qualifications. If anybody believes that without years of training they can make or hang those doors at the other end of the Chamber, then they do not understand that ours is a highly qualifield and skilled craft. Part of our trade union organisation involves the maintenance of skilled craftsmanship as an important element of our system. Yet the Bill says that they have to be "reasonably well qualified". That is all.
What does "reasonably well qualified" mean? There are people who pick up the trade and become what we call bodgers. They do all kinds of odd jobs, and make an absolute mess of them. Nevertheless, it could be argued that they are "reasonably well qualified" and that the union must accept them. If the union does not accept them, they can make a complaint. It is not just a question of acceptance of Clause 61—

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe): Mr. John Hall (Wycombe) rose——

Mr. Heller: Clause 62 specifically states:
It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any organisation of workers, or any official


of or person acting on behalf of such an organisation, to take or threaten to take any action against any member of the organisation or other person in contravention of the principles set out in section 61 of this Act.
That deals particularly with subsection (7).
1 think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) wished to intervene.

Mr. John Hall: Only because 1 should not want to see that unflattering description of bodgers go unchallenged. "Bodger" is the name given to craftsmen who turn out chair legs in the furniture industry, and they do their job well.

Mr. Heffer: I am talking about bodgers in the building industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they do not turn out chair legs very well.
Incidentally, for the hon. Gentleman's information, although I am sure that he knows, my union, A.S.W., and N.U.F.T.O. have an agreement to accept each other's cards, because it is recognised that the members of each union are trained craftsmen, able to do woodworking of one kind or another, who may from time to time have to exchange their particular industries.
That, incidentally, raises another point relating to an agency shop or the sole bargaining agency. In a shop where the A.S.W. became the sole bargaining agent, N.U.F.T.O. members would have to join the A.S.W. or become non-unionists, or vice versa. This is one further example of the complication in the Bill.
Trade unions will be faced with the problem that their strength is likely to be undermined because they have to accept people who are not acceptable. The membership would be taken out of their control in that sense and would be determined by the registrar. It would also be damaging to the skills of the particular trades.
I should like to point out what Donovan says about admission in paragraph 650:
The rules should state who is qualified for admission to the trade union … but"—
this is the point—
unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit.

The Solicitor-General: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the clause which lies between the two Clauses which he read? It is not even a continuous quotation. if the hon. Gentleman will start at the beginning of paragraph 650 and read the first two sentences the Committee will have the meaning.

Mr. Heffer: Certainly. It says:
They should be framed in such a way as to avoid discriminating arbitrarily against any type of applicant, but unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit.
That is precisely what happens now in my organisation. That is the position.
I think that I was a little more courteous to the Solicitor-General just now in giving way than he was to me, because when I wanted to intervene when he was speaking during the last debate he refused to give way. I do not know why. I have never refused to give way to anybody, whether I have been on the back benches, or speaking from this Box. At no time have I refused to give way, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be equally courteous when we debate issues of fundamental importance to the trade union movement.
The situation referred to in the Donovan Report is precisely that which exists in most trade unions, and certainly in my organisation. We have rules by which a person can apply for membership. If the branch turns him down—because he has to apply to the branch—he must be told at the branch meeting, and at that point he has the right of appeal to the national executive committee, and there have been occasions when, on appeal to the national executive, the executive has decided to allow the person concerned into the organisation. That happens now. We do not need the law to provide for that, and it is obvious that in introducing this proposal the Solicitor-General is unnecessarily introducing a law at a stage at which it is not needed.
Trade union rules are flexible in relation to the admittance of people into trade union organisations. During an earlier debate, I think that it was the Solicitor-General himself who said that all the Government were hoping to do by having this guiding principle was to bring the backward trade unions up to the standards of the best unions, but this proposal goes


beyond that. The Bill says that people must be accepted by trade unions whether the trade unions want them or not. I have already referred to the problem of unemployment. If there is a high level of unemployment, why should a trade union be forced, in those circumstances, to accept people whom it has no wish to accept?
There are many arguments about what "reasonably well qualified" means. Who, for example, is a "reasonably well qualified" docker? Most hon. Gentlemen opposite would not last five minutes on Liverpool docks. None of them is reasonably well qualified to be a Liverpool docker, and neither am I. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, someone could be regarded as being reasonably well qualified. One has only to ask what the phrase means to realise just how absurd it is.
I shall ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment, and I trust that on this occasion the Solicitor-General, or the Secretary of State, will accept the force of the argument that is put forward and realise that we are arguing a sensible and practical case. This is important to craft trade unions in particular, and to all trade unions in general. This is a matter of great importance to us, and we ask the Government to accept that the Amendment is put forward in the best interests of the trade union movement.

The Solicitor-General: Before replying to the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the Amendment, may I say that I hope that I have always tried to give way as often and as graciously as I can and should. If I was discourteous to the hon. Gentleman during the previous debate, I apologise, but one has always to judge between making progress in the debate and in one's speech, and being over-generous in giving way. I certainly did not intend to be discourteous to him.
10.45 p.m.
In this subsection the Government do not intend to prevent organisations laying down their own standards and rules. It is clear that the organisation can prepare its own rules. We say that a prospective member
… shall not, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, be excluded from membership …

so that the person who is reasonably well qualified for employment should not be arbitrarily or unreasonably discriminated against. This leaves it entirely free for a union or organisation to lay down clear and specific grounds on which a person shall not be admitted or should be expelled. A person with a bad membership record would not have any right to admission. A person with no qualifications at all or who had manifestly poor qualifications would not be entitled to admission. We accept the case for the concept of craft unions and qualifications. The unions have played their part in asserting and raising standards. But there comes a point where qualifications defined in that way are being used as the foundation for excluding people who ought to be entitled to be admitted to particular kinds of work.
If one has, for example, a rule—as one has in some unions—that only a son or grandson of a former union member or a former employee in a particular kind of work should be admitted, how can that be justified? Suppose that people who are superlatively qualified by any standards for the trade which that union is regulating are confronted with rules which say, "I am sorry, but whatever your qualifications you cannot be admitted because you do not meet this arbitrary …"—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like the House of Lords.

The Solicitor-General: I am trying to get to the argument of the debate. It may be asserted by some hon. Members opposite that entry should be founded upon the hereditary principle. I have not heard it widely argued.
I suggest that it would not be acceptable to either side of the Committee to accept the existence of arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination in respect of well qualified people.
We accept the case for sections and branches. The wording of the Clause:
Any person who applies for membership of the organisation, or of a branch or section of the organisation …
makes perfectly clear that different standards of qualification for different skills in different branches and sections would be acceptable. I take the point about the ex tent to which unions are merging. One of the ways of facilitating


this is the existence of different sections with different skills, as part of the conglomerate. We accept that reasonable standards should be laid down. The only point on which we insist is that there should not be arbitrary discrimination against the background of reasonable qualification.

Mr. John Hall: I am worried about the definition of "reasonably well". I see the difficulties which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has raised. Looking at it practically, I find it hard to understand how one could define "reasonably well qualified". Is it not possible to delete those two words and leave it as "qualified"? What would be the disadvantage of doing it in that way?

The Solicitor-General: I take my hon. Friend's point. It marches in line with my next point, and I will answer it.
In the Report of the Donovan Commission, there are two paragraphs dealing with the relationship between training and the right of admission to organisations. Paragraph 358 says:
Once objective standards have been laid down by which qualification for skilled work can be judged, trade unions should review their rule books and make any revision of the rules necessary to ensure that no qualified worker will be arbitrarily denied either the right of admission to the union or the right to use the skills which he has acquired. Failing this, any worker who alleges that he or she is qualified to do skilled work but has nevertheless been refused membership of the union … should have the right of appeal to the independent review body …
In that paragraph, the word is exactly as my hon. Friend puts it: "qualified", rather than "reasonably well qualified". The intention is that people who are qualified should have the right of admission. But, in many sections of industry at the moment, we have not got clearly laid down objective qualifications. It is a matter which will have to be judged, as we think, in the light of conditions in the industry and in the light of the applicant concerned.
To say "qualified" would imply a plainly identifiable standard. If one takes the case of people who have been through Government training centres and who have achieved qualifications which may not march in line with any statutory

or clear standard or any pre-existing union standard, we think that the tribunal which will consider this should be entitled to say whether they are "reasonably well qualified". It is in order to provide that flexibility that the provision is worded in that way. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps I might press the hon. and learned Gentleman a little further on this, because it may help the Committee to understand precisely what "qualification" can mean.
The word can have a variety of meanings. An apprentice, for instance, is obviously qualified when he has served his time. One can have other circumstances in which a person has no qualification that he can present, other than the fact that he has been offered a job. That might be considered a reasonable qualification. Would a union be acting arbitrarily and unreasonably if it refused admission to someone who had no job on the ground that he would be adding to the unemployment in the area, or could it properly refuse admission because the person had not the necessary qualification of an offer of employment?

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the sector with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The possession or non-possession of a job probably would be difficult to identify as a reasonably good qualification. On the other hand, the length of service in a job of the same kind would probably amount to a qualification.
In the case of Equity, X years' or months' service in previous jobs could well be regarded as qualification by service—as one of several; there are others. There are no precise and exact qualifications or certificates. Cases would have to be looked at according to the conditions of the industry and the union operating in it.
We cannot accept that there is any single magic statutory form of qualification which can be encapsulated more precisely than others. On the other hand, we cannot accept that, against the background of reasonable standards, a union should be entitled to exclude from employment in a trade someone who is manifestly qualified for the job and being arbitrarily and unreasonably excluded from it.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the word "well" required? Would it not be enough to be reasonably qualified?

The Solicitor-General: There is some force in that point. The word "qualified" by itself implied too precise and objective a standard. "Reasonably" modifies that, but "reasonably well" might modify it too far. We shall certainly look at this again.

Mr. John Hall: Do not both qualifications imply a subjective judgment, which can vary from individual to individual? This is why I object to it, because it is not sufficiently precise. Legislation should be precise. One is either qualified or not qualified.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) made a reasonable case about the craft unions, and there is another complex point about the general worker unions, like dock workers. Entry of the industry often starts with a sort of routine operation, and one proceeds to the more skilled operations on ships and in the docks.
The phrase "reasonably well qualified" can be interpreted in so many ways. Those who applied for the more skilled occupations on the docks and aboard ships would naturally say that some part of the labour force needed no expertise or qualifications, and they could call in aid this terminology.
People who were well qualified might be the subject of argument as to whether they were "reasonably" well qualified. I can imagine a heyday for those who use words and law as an occupation and who would make the reverse argument, that a man could be reasonably qualified but not well qualified. The situation for these unions is too blurred for clear definition, and this would be bad law.
With these other occupations, for which there are no diplomas or professional standing, people might transfer from one occupation to another, because of unemployment, on the basis that they were reasonably well qualified for any occupation. This would never do.
I am more concerned with the case law which would follow this legislation. Might not any court conclude that no

one could be debarred from membership on the basis that he did not possess the appropriate qualifications?
Paragraph 650 of Donovan shows that the unions have the necessary knowledge and information to protect their rules and constitution, and therefore shows those who are eligible for membership of the various general worker unions, and the various crafts and firms and extra specialities involved. This would be adequately covered by the Amendment. It would cover the situation to such an extent that there would be no dubiety.
If the Secretary of State is concerned about registration and believes that the Clauses concerning registration would provide adequate protection, I cannot understand his reluctance to accept the concept that the trade unions should be left, with their experience, to draw up appropriate rules; because the Registrar, under preceding Clauses, would have the control and, if he thought that the rules did not sufficiently indicate the qualifications which would be necessary to secure membership, he could ask that they be stated in the rules. The Amendment is far better in its approach, application and effect than the words in the Bill.

11 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has undertaken to look at the Clause again. One of the difficulties facing us arises because of the varying skills required of different craftsmen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and myself have a reasonable knowledge of conditions and practices in the building industry. There are many trades in that industry where this provision might cause confusion.
I suggest a simple solution. "Reasonably well qualified" could lead to difficulties of interpretation. Will the Solicitor-General consider adding "having regard to the skills required in that craft", which would make it easier to interpret the provision if a court ruling was required?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the Amendment were accepted the Clause would read thus:
Any person who applies for membership of the organisation, or of a branch or section of the organisation, and who …


(b) is eligible under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member and qualified for employment as a worker of that description.
What has been said on both sides has indicated that the Amendment should commend itself to reasonable people. The uncertainty of the situation has been mentioned. This could lead to a tightening of admission clauses.
Equity exercises no determination in respect of qualifications. It leaves this question entirely in the hands of the employer. If the employer thinks sufficiently well of the person concerned to give him a contract, the union accepts that and does not attempt to determine whether the person is qualified.
I ask hon. Members to consider what can happen if the concept of reasonable qualification, which is within the union's determination, is introduced. If a pop singer wanted to follow in the tracks of Tommy Steele and the National Theatre wanted to cast him in the role of Bottom or what-have-you, that pop singer would have no qualification, never having undertaken any training of that sort. The union is to be given the power to determine casting, something which the union has rejected hitherto. Equity has always said, "It is not our role to say whether or not pop singer Tommy Steele shall or shall not appear at the National Theatre." Parliament is now saying to Equity, "It is your job to say whether Tommy Steele or his successor or the man who follows his successor is reasonably qualified to do this, that or the other."
I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General said what was imputed to him by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), namely, that he was ready to examine the Clause again and come back on Report with a new proposal. Persuasive arguments have been put from both sides of the Committee, and it may be that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands. I think that he would have great difficulty in improving upon it. But, if he does not accept it as it stands, will he say that he recognises the force of the case which has been put, he will consider the matter, and come back on Report with a proposal designed to meet it? I do not know, not having discussed it with them, but I imagine that, if we

have a firm assertion of that sort, my hon. Friends might be prepared not to press the Amendment to a Division.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's view. For my part, if we have a firm assurance in those terms—and it must be firm—I should be ready to accept it instead of going into the Lobby on the Amendment.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to people who take courses at Government training centres and acquire new skills. There is a Government training centre at Manchester which was opened about four years ago. When I visited the centre at about that time I was told—I think that the Minister of Labour made the same point in opening the centre—that it was a great pity that virtually no engineering training could be undertaken there. I think that the only engineering trade taught at that time was welding, which was not covered by the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
The reason for that gap in the training facilities was that the district branch of the A.E.U. would not allow any trainee who came out of that G.T.C. to join the union. The hon. Gentleman notes that I speak of the district branch——

Mr. Heller: The district committee.

Mr. Woodhouse: The district committee. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. At the material time, the district organiser was Mr. Hugh Scanlon, who is now—is this right?—the general secretary of the union at its national headquarters.

Mr. Heller: The president.

Mr. Woodhouse: The president, I beg his pardon.
The hon. Gentleman said—I can understand the point—that in areas of high unemployment there was a natural reluctance to admit to the union people who had not gone through the normal period of apprenticeship. But an area of high unemployment is an area where firms are reluctant to open new plants, and often the reason for their reluctance is the lack of skilled labour in the area. So the union is, in effect, promoting a vicious circle: it will not allow trainees from the G.T.C. into the union, and the area remains one of high unemployment—a development


area, a depressed area, however one chooses to call it.
I understand that that practice in the Manchester area is still followed by the successor organisation, the A.E.W.U. I have no doubt that it would not be acceptable under the terms of the Clause as drafted. I should be very glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that that practice is defensible, and how it would be affected by the Amendment, if at all.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) put the industry side very well, and was supported by someone on the employers' side of the building industry. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) also gave the picture from the employers' side of the furniture industry.
My hon. Friend has a point here. The Solicitor-General now admits that it is very difficult to explain the words "reasonably well qualified". He does not know whether "reasonably" or "well" should be left in, but he evidently thinks that "qualified" should be left in.
I do not know why the trade unions should be restricted like this. They should be the ones to decide who should or should not be admitted. I do not see why they should be tied to a restriction on whether a person is reasonably well qualified, or qualified at all. They should decide, in the same way as I am sure the Institute of Directors would not admit my hon. Friend. He would rightly say that he would not want to be admitted. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the sotto voce interjection that it would say that he is not qualified. I agree, because he is not a director. I also heard a comment from an hon. Member opposite about the Stock Exchange. It has very restrictive rules. I think that members have to pay £76,000 to join. I suppose that being able to pay that could be argued as being "reasonably qualified".
The Solicitor-General made a little aside that rather upset me and, I am sure, my hon. Friend. He made a slighting reference to dockers restricting membership of their union to the family, the son of the father. I asked whether the House of Lords did not restrict its membership to the sons of the fathers, with the qualification that they must not be certified

as lunatics. Apart from that they can be anything. They can be crooks. They can follow their fathers and be called "reasonably well qualified".

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has always been an opponent of the proposition that hereditary qualification is reasonable. I find it difficult to understand why he should propose that it is reasonable in this case, when he has spent many hours of the time of the House attacking it in another case.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It was not I who said it but the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was attacking the dockers for carrying out something which he supports. I am not defending the dockers. All I am saying is that they are only doing something which the Solicitor-General and the Government have been doing by maintaining an institution which has been going on for 700 years. f the right hon. and learned Gentleman is attacking one as an example, he should attack both.
Another aspect of this matter concerns safety. There are many people who call themselves handymen, particularly in heating, plumbing and ventilation. As has been mentioned, the term in the building trade vernacular is "bodgers". Does the Solicitor-General realise how dangerous the activities of these people can be to life and limb? They establish one-man businesses for the installation of central heating systems which are often death traps. The national Press has taken up this matter. A man who is a bit disreputable and not qualified in the strict sense of the word may say that he is "reasonably well qualified" because he has installed several central heating systems. But they may be faulty and may not work from the date of installation and be a danger to the public. He may say, "The union will not be able to refuse me a ticket because I have shown that I am 'reasonably well qualified', and under the terms of the Bill I shall demand a ticket".
Mrs. Smith, having seen the publicity in the Press about being careful of the activities of these "bodgers" installing heating and ventilation systems, may say, "Before you start, I want to see your


qualifications". He will say, "You have heard of the A.E.U., which is a craftsmen's union? Here is my ticket". By law, he will have to have a ticket, even though he may not be qualified.
Another illustration which is vital to the safety of life and limb concerns repairs to cars and other vehicles. When I take my car to a garage I know that the engineer is qualified and that the car will be dealt with properly and will be safe to go on the road. [Hon. Members: "Oh"'.] Do hon. Members opposite say that garages do not do a good job? People who have no proof of qualification will be able to get a ticket by saying, "I am a qualified engineer because I have by law been admitted into the engineering union". The union concerned will not be able to refuse him a ticket.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I do not think that in discriminating against such a person a union would be accused of being either "arbitrary" or "unreasonable", and therefore I do not think that such a person would qualify for membership.

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Much as I respect and admire his point of view and opinion, the Solicitor-General is the person to whom I must listen because he has admitted that "reasonably well qualified" is open to doubt. As the Clause is drafted, the union would have to admit the person into membership if he can claim that he is "reasonably well qualified". The Solicitor-General has agreed to look at this point because he acknowledges that the wording is too wide.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has again tried to woo the Committee by suggesting that it does not matter really whether the union should be allowed the complete right to decide who should join or who should not join. If we were talking about golf or tennis clubs, that argument would be a good one. But we are not. We are talking about organisations which, in certain sectors of industry, are in a position where their refusal of a union card

virtually means that a man cannot obtain or keep employment. That is the major point.
I suppose that one could say that, with the registrar now supervising much more closely the rules of a union, the terms of the Amendment might be sufficient in that members should be those who are
… eligible under the rules of the organisation.…

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Amendment in relation to subsection (2)(b) are covered by the terms of sub-subsection (2)(a), which says,
… in accordance with the rules of the organisation …"?

Mr. Mawby: That is true. On the other hand, I see no reason, other than that of tidiness, why, if one thinks a thing worth saying, one should not say it twice. I was attracted to the wording of the Amendment because at present there is no close supervision of union rules and therefore society should have that sort of protection. But under the new Registrar it may well be that the kind of wording proposed will cover the case.
Clause 61(2) seeks to prevent a union from acting arbitrarily or operating unreasonable discrimination against a person. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) made the valid point that in most skilled trades or crafts it would not matter much whether one stipulated "reasonably well qualified" or "qualified" or anything else, because there is a recognised standard, which is generally accepted, before a person can become a fully skilled member of the union. We are talking about the kind of people he referred to—those in the theatrical profession, in the docks and so on. Indeed, a whole host of people are concerned.
My hon. and learned Friend has gone a considerable way in accepting the fact that "reasonably well qualified" may not be the right form of wording and may leave the definition much too wide. I would have thought that "qualified" would be enough, but I hope that he will look at the matter between now and Report to ensure that the wording is such that it will achieve the objective that a union should not be unreasonably required to take into membership a person


it believes has not the qualifications it would normally require, while ensuring that it cannot operate arbitrary or unfair or unreasonable discrimination against an applicant. This is where the balance must lie.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can assure us that he will study the matter and, if necessary, produce some words on Report to meet the case which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made.

Mr. Harold Walker: I have intervened before the Solicitor-General because as the debate has proceeded I have begun to realise more sharply than ever the reason for the insertion of the subsection and the misconception on which it is based. The arguments of Government supporters have shown how necessary the Amendment is. Quite apart from exposing the Solicitor-General's complete lack of understanding of trade union rules, they have clearly shown that the situation at which the Government are tilting and which is mentioned in the Report of the Royal Commission and about which we have read so much in the Press in recent years may be described by saying that we are spending a great deal of money on Government training centres to produce the craftsmen necessary for the expansion of industry, but the obstructive attitude of the unions is preventing such people from obtaining employment and so making a contribution to industry.
This attitude is based on a misunderstanding, and it is a confusion of two separate matters. The Solicitor-General referred to paragraph 358 of the Report of the Royal Commission which mentioned the products of Government training centres. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) referred to a specific situation. What is being discussed is not a man's admission to union membership, or which union it would be appropriate for him to join, but his admission to employment.
As the hon. Member for Oxford mentioned, the A.E.F., my own union, may I put the record right? I am familiar with the situation in Manchester, having lived for many years close to the Government training centre there. It has been

established not for four, but more nearly 20 years at Denton. I was formerly a shop stewards convenor of the A.E.U. in that district.
The attitude of the A.E.F. is that it expects the first opportunity to fill a skilled vacancy to be offered to unemployed time-served skilled craftsmen in the district. If there is none, or if none wishes to occupy the vacancy, it should be offered then to a person appropriately qualified by virtue of experience and service in the establishment where the vacancy has arisen. If, those first two priorities having been met, the vacancy is still unfilled, the union has no objection to a Government trainee occupying it. That seems to be a reasonable position for the A.E.F., and it is not the position of obstinate obduracy about which we have heard so often and which was implied by the hon. Member's description.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Woodhouse: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. Would he deny that it is the case that no engineering skills covered by his union are taught at that Government training centre—for the reasons that I stated. Furthermore, exactly the same criticism I made was made four years ago by his right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker: Former Ministers on either side are not oracles and masters of the absolute truth. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), for whom I have a great deal of affection and respect, for the reasons that I have given, I can claim to be more familiar with the situation than he. He relied on the advice of his Department and I think that I know more about that situation than those officials. Hon. Gentlemen must bear in mind that this centre has not attempted for many years to put on courses in engineering, other than a welding course, so it has not tested the situation. Let it do that. Perhaps the hon. Member prefers to rely on the word of the local Engineering Employers Federation. The position in the A.E.F. is as I have described, and I have done it with care because it needs to be placed on the record.


I said that the situation with which this subsection seeks to deal is not the real problem. The subsection deals with union membership, with whether the man will be accepted for a particular employment situation but hon. Members opposite seem to think that what is at issue is the denial of the man's right to be a member of the A.E.F. It centres around the confusion between the different sections of membership in the A.E.F. and the distinction between section 1 and section 5. There is a common assumption that section 1 is exclusively reserved for craftsmen and if an applicant is not admitted into that section then he cannot, in A.E.F. terms, be a skilled craftsman.
This shows the error of the subsection to which we are drawing attention. The restrictions imposed on admission under section 1 are not merely restrictions placed upon applicants in terms of craft qualifications. They are restrictions in terms of age, because of the friendly benefit provisions. This is where the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends misunderstand the British trade union movement. One respect at least in which it is near unique among trade union movements throughout the world is in its deep involvement with friendly benefit provisions. It is this which is often a crucial factor in determining to which section an individual should he admitted.
There may be someone who has served 20 years in a skilled trade in the engineering industry, perhaps as a colliery fitter and therefore a member of the N.U.M. If he leaves the coal mining industry because of contraction there, because of a pit closure, and makes an application to be a fitter in an engineering factory, it may well be that he is denied admission to section 1 of the A.E.F., not because the A.E.F. says that he is an unskilled man, but because we say that he has passed the age of 40. That age is inserted because of actuarial considerations in determining superannuation benefit that goes with that section of membership. This is the point at issue in our Amendment and this is why we seek the insertion of these words.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey (Birmingham, Perry Barr): I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has arrived at that position, because my feeling is that the 50- and 60-year-

olds—the hon. Member takes it down even to the 40-year-olds—are denied reasonable access. Is that hon. Gentleman honestly saying that to his fellow members?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry; perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am trying to say that the widespread assumption that the distinctions which are drawn between the sections in the A.E.F. are based exclusively on craft or otherwise is false.
Let me read quickly from the A.E.F. "blue book" and quote the relevant part of the rule relating to admission into section 1. This is the green card section. I have my green card in my pocket—paid in advance, I might say. I quote:
A candidate into section 1 who has worked three years in the workshop in addition to at least four years in the engineering department of a technical school shall be eligible. Candidates into section 1 shall be at least 19 and less than 40 years of age.
I said that that age band is chosen because one of the crucial differences between section 1 and other sections of membership is that it provides a superannuation benefit, and the superannuation fund has to be operated on an actuarial basis taking age considerations into account.
Let me turn to section 5 membership, the rule for which states that this section is open to
Any male person between the ages of 19 and 50 years employed in the engineering trade. … Candidates desiring skilled status must produce evidence as provided in Rule 23"—
that is, evidence of having served the appropriate number of years. That makes quite clear that an individual can still be a skilled man in section 5 enjoying fully-skilled status. The only reason why he is driven into section 5 instead of section 1 is that the age factor hinges on the superannuation benefit.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Nothing that the hon. Gentleman is saying makes any difference to the rule book that he is reading. If the rules are aceptable to the registrar, subsection (2), which has two paragraphs, (a) and (b), which run together, read together and are one sentence, provides that the worker must not only be reasonably well qualified, but must be of a description which is
in accordance with the rules of the organisation".


It does not, therefore, make any difference.

Mr. Walker: If I believed that the hon Member was right, I should be urging my hon. Friends to reconsider whether we should divide. Subsection (2) states, however:
is a worker of the description, or (as the case may be) of one of the descriptions, of which, in accordance with the rules of the organisation, the organisation or that branch or section, as the case may be, is intended".
It is "the description". That seems to me to say that irrespective of age, if under paragraph (b) a person is deemed to be reasonably well qualified, he can say "I can produce evidence of having served the requisite number of years in a fully-skilled trade. I therefore demand admission into section 1 of the A.E.F." That is what it seems to me to say. [HON MEMBERS: "No."]
If the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General tell me that I am absolutely wrong, perhaps we should look at it again. Until we are convinced that we are wrong, however, I say that there is no reasonable objection to inserting the words of our Amendment, which seems to me to be reasonable and is carefully constructed. In any event, if the Government accept that what I have said should be the case, that will only underpin what we are seeking. Consequently, it should not be objectionable and, therefore, should be acceptable.
I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies, he will say that the subsection means what I want it to mean and, therefore, he will have no objection to inserting the words which we suggest to make it clear beyond peradventure, because they could not be harmful. If he says otherwise, we must press our Amendment to a Division.
I hope that I have cleared up once and for all that silly nonsense we hear about the denial of the right to work for people who have attended Government training centres or such a denial because people are not admitted to skilled status in the A.E.U. At the same time I hope we have demonstrated that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what union rule books are all about.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): My hon. Friend has been dealing with the problem of what is meant by "reasonably well qualified", and he has no doubt noticed that subsection (3) uses the phrase "reasonable notice". Does he think the use of this term in the Clause has any significance in view of the power given to the Registrar in Clause 71 to examine the rules? Does he regard this as a means of letting the Registrar interfere directly with the rules of the union?

Mr. Walker: My hon. and learned Friend has put his finger on a crucial weakness in the provision.

The Solicitor-General: The premise of this debate is that there are situations in which unions can control a man's right of access to a job by controlling his right of access to membership of a union. The examples given by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) and Totnes (Mr. Mawby) made that point. In these circumstances, we cannot acknowledge a union's right, any more than did Donovan, totally to control access to membership of people qualified by skill, craft and training for work in such a way to allow the union unreasonably and arbitrarily to exclude those people from jobs. That is both the starting and finishing point of the matter.
We attach importance to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on the need for some control of a union's rules. He attaches importance to the fact that rules are now to be under some kind of regulation and control as giving the safeguard that is needed. It is right that in Clause 71 the Registrar will have to see that the rules of registered unions dealing with matters such as the right of admission to a union are in accordance with these general principles. That is the central point.
On the precise formulation of the matter, I take note of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who speak with experience in different industries, that all we want to achieve is that a person qualified for employment has access in the last resort to membership of a union and cannot be excluded by arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination.


We are willing to look again at the words "reasonably well qualified" to see that they march in line with the point made in the Donovan Report. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) when describing the Manchester rules of the A.E.F. use the phrase "appropriately qualified by their experience and skills". There are many different ways of formulating this, and we would be willing to look at the matter.
I regret that we cannot accept the wording of the Amendment that eligibility under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member is a sufficient test. If we were to accept those words, it would mean that a union could write into its rules, any kind of conditions it likes as to eligibility. We cannot accept that, although we are prepared to look again at the way in which we formulate the right of people qualified for work to get into unions. We cannot accept the Amendment because we cannot concede that amount of control over the structure of their rules to unions, registered or unregistered.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: I strongly urge the Solicitor-General to think again. No one involved in industrial relations can lightly view a Government interfering with and directing independent organisations as to the members they should accept.
I say that people involved in industrial relations cannot view this matter lightly, because every organisation in industrial relations will come within the principle enunciated by the Government. Employers' organisations, although this might not be known to the Government, will come within the same definitions, and many of them are extremely concerned about the Government's intentions.
I do not think that any promise to examine further whether a man is qualified or reasonably well qualified has any bearing on the matter. The Solicitor-General, to some extent, misunderstands the union position. I do not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he lacks knowledge of the practicalities of unions. But I think that the Committee as a whole must recognise that unions are not merely associations of people qualified to do a certain job. Unions,

in a great part, when admitting people to membership, take account of ethical and moral considerations. This provision will completely rob them of any right to judge membership of any man or woman on ethical and moral standards. The Government may think that this is not so, but I believe that if the Clause is passed as it is a great deal of interference will take place which cannot be justified.
The Solicitor-General has made clear what the debate is about. It is not about membership of trade unions at all; it is about the right of a man who is qualified to obtain work within an industry.
Must union rules be restricted because of the right of a man to work within an industry? It seems odd that a Government dedicated against the closed shop principle should, de facto, by this provision, accept the closed shop situation where a man must be a member of a union to obtain employment.
I now turn to another point which the Secretary of State might take rather more seriously. This principle will apply de facto to employers' associations and to everyone else concerned in industrial relations. I must here declare an interest. I am associated with the Federation of Builders, which was set up primarily for servicing matters in the industry and to adjudge codes of conduct. That organisation has local admission committees in different localities which judge the ethical and moral standards of people who apply to join.
According to the Bill, any employer within any industry automatically has the right to join his association, just as any man who is adjudged to be reasonably well qualified has the right to join a union. What will this mean to employers' associations if it becomes law? It will mean that discretion on ethical standards is completely withdrawn from those local admission committees. At the moment a local admission committee might say, "This builder in this locality is well known to be a jerry builder". It will therefore refuse him membership and not have to explain why. If the Clause is accepted as it is, I am sure that any builder so excluded will demand an explanation and the local admission committee, unless its decision to exclude


stands up in law, cannot refuse him membership.
Some people may ask: why should anyone be excluded on hearsay evidence? I am merely saying that the position will be extremely serious. It emphasises what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—that to introduce legal proceedings in cases like this will lead to a great deal of distortion of membership in all organisations in industrial relations.

I put the case forward with sincerity, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will look again at what is an extremely grave matter—that of the House of Commons interfering with the rights of independent organizations to adjudge what calibre members they will admit.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 254, Noes 285.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[11.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard


Albu, Austen
Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Latham, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom
Lawson, George


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred
Leonard, Dick


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnett, Joel
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher


Concannon. J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cobert, Mrs. Freda
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhodda, E.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric




O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
O'Malley, Brian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Bert


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Dolg, Peter
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred




Pendry, Tom
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Eric G.


Perry, Ernest G.
Sillars, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Silverman, Julius
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Wallace, George


Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watkins, David


Probert, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roper, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Havers, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Hawkins, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hayhoe, Barney


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Higgins, Terence L.


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Batsford, Brian
Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holt, Miss Mary


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dykes, Hugh
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Benyon, W.
Eden, Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Farr, John
James, David


Boscawen, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Fidler, Michael
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Braine, Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jopling, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brewis, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fry, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lambton, Antony


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Gower, Raymond
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Churchill, W. S.
Grieve, Percy
Loveridge, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian



Grylls, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
McLaren, Martin


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maddan, Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Cordle, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maginnis, John E.


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Critchley, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan
Mather, Carol







Maude, Angus
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Sutcliffe, John


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tepsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Miscampbell, Norman
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Moate, Roger
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Molyneaux, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Money, Ernie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tilney, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


More, Jasper
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Royle, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Russell, Sir Ronald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
St. John-St-vas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Murton, Oscar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Waddington, David


Nabarro, Sir Geral
Sharples, Richard
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Heave, Airey
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wall, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Osborn, John
Soref, Harold
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Spence, John
Wilkinson, John


Paisley, Mr Ian
Sproat, Iain
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stainton Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Worsley, Marcus


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Younger, Hn. George


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)



Pink, R. Bonner
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pounder, Rafton
Stokes, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Hugh Rossi.

It being after Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Clause Stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 253.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[12.4 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Curran, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack


Astor, John
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Sir Eric
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dixon, Piers


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chapman, Sydney
Eden, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Benyon, W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Emery, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Fell, Anthony




Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Boscawen, Robert
Coombs, Derek
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Cordle, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim


Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crowder, F. P.
Fry, Peter




Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForeSt)
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David
Sharples, Richard


Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil
Simeons, Charles


Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sproat, Iain


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Havers, Michael
Money, Ernie
Stokes, John


Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Sutcliffe, John


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Holt, Miss Mary
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hordern, Peter
Heave, Airey
Thatcher Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Tilney, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Paisley, Mr Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pounder, Rafton
Warren, Kenneth


Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
White, Roger (Gravesend)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt Hn. William


Kinsey, J. R.
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wilkinson, John


Kitson, Timothy
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Worsley, Marcus


Lambton, Antony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Jasper More


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.
Cronin, John


Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony







Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Rt. Rn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Garrett, W. E.
Mallelieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas,Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Watkins, David


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland King



Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Joseph Harper and


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Golding

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH PRINCIPLES STATED IN SECTION 61.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 247.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Emery, Peter
Lambton, Antony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Lane, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Astor, John
Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


Atkins, Humphrey
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aherdeenshire, W)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Molyneaux, James


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Menro, Hector


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, RtHn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
Heave, Airey


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Cockeram, Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Paisley, Mr Ian


Cordle, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Curran, Charles
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dixon, Piers
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Rost, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hoyle, Anthony
Stokes, John
Waddington, David


Russell, Sir Ronald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Scott, Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis


Sharples, Richard
Taylor,Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Spence, John
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Sproat, Iain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Stainton, Keith
Trew, Peter



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard


Albu, Austen
Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Latham, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Barnett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Bradley Tom
Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, High


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ronald (ShoneditCh &amp; F'bury)
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Rt Hn. James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millian, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cronin, John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Denzi1 (Llanelly)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'h'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Ronald King


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Bert


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie







Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.


Pendry, Tom
Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G.


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Perry, Ernest G.
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Probert, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitehead, Phillip


Richard, Ivor
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roper, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tinn, James



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. John Golding.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 63

ORGANISATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNIONS

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 245.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushelliffe)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhart, Philip


Astor, John
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Atkins, Humphrey
Coombs, Derek
Gorst, John


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper, A. E.
Cower, Raymond


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marytebone)
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Critchley, Julian
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Curran, Charles
Gummer, Selwyn


Benyon, W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gurden, Harold


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Body, Richard
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boscawen, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Brain, Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Brewis, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brinton, Sir Talton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Buck, Antony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Holt, Miss Mary


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fidler, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornby, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Carlisle, Mark
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, David (Guildford)




Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Channon, Paul
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Norman
Iremonge T. L.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward
Jessel, Toby




Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jopling, Michael
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


Kilfedder, James
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kirk, Peter
Osborn, John
Stokes, John


Kitson, Timothy
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sutcliffe, John


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Lambton, Antony
Paisley, Mr Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lane, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tebbit, Norman


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pounder, Rafton
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


MacArthur, Ian
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S


McLaren, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John


McMaster, Stanley
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Fit. Hn, James
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maddan, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)

White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rost, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Miscampbell, Normany
Royle, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Moate, Roger
Scott, Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Molyneaux, James
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Money, Ernie
Sharples, Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Monro, Hector

Younger, Hn. George


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)



More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Castle, Rt. Fin. Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Eddie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Baggier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Joel
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Foley, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Michael


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr. John




Ginsburg, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Callaghan, Rt. Ha. James
Dempsey, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtslde)


Carter, Ray (Birtmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)







Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John
Roper, John


Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul B.


Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Horam, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Sillars, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stallard, A. W.


Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Janner, Greville
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Swain, Thomas


John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Torney, Tom


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Tuck, Raphael


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Wallace, George


Latham, Arthur
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Loughlin, Charle
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. T. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rees, MErlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McCartney, Hugh
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. James Hamilton and


McGuire, Michael
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 64

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION

Question Put, That the Clause Stand Part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 246.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[12.35 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Channon, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Braine, Bernard
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Churchill, W. S.


Bell, Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Paul
Cooke, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Coombs, Derek


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Cooper, A. E.




Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W. (N'C'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Longstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gardner, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Temple, John M.


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gummer, Selwyn
Money, Ernie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Holland, Philip
Paisley, Mr Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner



Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Tim Fortescue.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P, C.
Murray, Ronald King


Albu, Austen
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Bert


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Barnes, Michael
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Pendry, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Roes, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Greville
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Calaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Sillars, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lamond, James
Small, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Deakins, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dormand, J. D
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Tomney Frank


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael
Torne, Tom


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric C.


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Ellis, Tom
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Watkins David


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Rt.Hn. Roy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Meacher, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Golding, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 65 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF RULES BY REGISTRAR

Question Put, That the Clause Stand Part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 249.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[12.48 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Astor, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.


Bakes, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Farr, John
Kirk, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Batsford, Brian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Bell, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Antony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Benny, Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.


Boscawen, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Bosom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bray, Ronald
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Brewis, John
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Bryan, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscamphell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell,Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Carr,Rt.Hn.Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clegg Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Coombs, Derek
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Cordle, John
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Crowder, F. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John


Curran, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Paisley, Mr Ian


Dean, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
James, David
Percival, Ian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch




Proudfoot, Wilfred
Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter


Pym, Rt. Fin. Francis
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Spence, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Redmond, Robert
Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Sutcliffe, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wilkinson, John


Royce, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Rt. George


Sharples, Richard
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Hector Monro and


Simeons, Charles
Tilney, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew


Sinclair, Sir George
Trafford, Dr. Anthony





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Albu, Austen
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St P'cras,S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Kelley, Richard


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foley, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Leonard, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (EccleS)
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cronin, John
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin



Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E,)


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Marks, Kenneth


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce


Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.







Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas


Molloy, William
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Richard, Ivor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Moyle, Roland
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Bric'n &amp; R'dnor)
Torney, Tom


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tuck, Raphael


Murray, Ronald King
Roper, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Eric G.


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orbach, Maurice
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Watkins, David


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Probert, Arthur
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Donald Coleman

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT AS TO APPROVAL OF RULES

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 242.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[1.1 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fortescue, Tim


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Churchill, W. S.
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Clark, Wrlliam (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Gardner, Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Biffen, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Green, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Dean, Paul
Gummer, Selwyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Braise, Bernard
Dixon, Piers
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bray, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brewis John
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Havers, Michael


Buck, Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Carlisle, Clark
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Channon, Paul
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Holland, Philip




Holt, Miss Mary
Molyneaux, James
Simeons, Charles


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernie
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Clame Patricia
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Soref, Harold


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
More, Jasper
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sproat, Iain


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Jessel, Toby
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stokes, John


Joseph, Fit. Hn. Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Sutcliffe, John


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tebbit, Norman


Kirk, Peter
Paisley, Mr Ian
Temple, John M.


Kitson, Timothy
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Knox, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Lambton, Antony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Trew, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Vickers, Dame Joan


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Waddington, David


McCrindle, R. A.
Redmond, Robert
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McLaren, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McMaster, Stanley
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)




Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Mattel, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maginnis, John E.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James



Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Moaty, Roger
Shelton, Wiltam (Clapham)
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Driberg, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Barnes, Michael
Conlan, Bernard
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Joel
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fernyhough, E.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brown, Bob (N'etk-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gilbert, Dr. John


Cant, R. B.
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter
Golding, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dormand, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)







Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Roy
Marquand, David
Sillars, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Horam, John
Meacher, Michael
Small, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Huckfieid, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milian, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney, Tom


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oram, Bert
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Leonard, Dick
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitehead, Phillip


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Whitlock, William


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prescott, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lomas, Kenneth
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Richard, Ivor



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McBride, Neil
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


McElhone, Frank
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ON OTHER GROUNDS.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[1.13 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Baker, Kenneth (St.Marylebone)
Boscawen, Robert
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark



Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Channon, Paul


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bray, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney


Bell, Ronald
Brewis, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Churchill, W. S.




Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Critchiey, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Curran, Charles
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigefor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'AvIgetor-Coldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dixon, Piers
Kitson, Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Antony
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simeons, Charles


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spncer
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madden, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fookos, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Tilney, John


Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernie
Trew, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gummer, Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Garden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Wail, Patrick


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Whitlaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Wilkinson, John


Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Paisley, Mr Ian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian



Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Jasper More and


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Tim Fortescue







NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oram, Bert


Barnes, Michael
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Pt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cronin, John
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S. W.)
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Evans, Fred
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Ginsburg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Colding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Joseph Harper

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

ENTRY OF ORGANISATIONS IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—


The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 247.

Division No. 154].
AYES
[1.24 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Farr, John
Kirk, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Batsford, Brian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Antony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer


Benyon, W.
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Biffen, John
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Body Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Godhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Bray Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Green, Alan
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Paul
Grylis, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
More, Jasper


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Cordle, John
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Crowder, F. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John


Curran, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Dean Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn, W. F.
James, David
Percival, Ian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn John


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


du Cann, Rt Hn. Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch


Dykes, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Eden, Sir John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis







Quennell, Miss J. M.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Raison, Timothy
Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Redmond, Robert
Sproat, Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rost, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wilkinson, John


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sharpies, Richard
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Simeons, Charles
Tilney, John
Mr. Hector Monro and


Sinclair, Sir George
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. Keith Speed.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Armstrong, Ernest
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Kinnock, Neil


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fernyhough, E.
Lambie, David


Booth, Albert
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lamond, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Latham, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Foley, Maurice
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter -Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Golding, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McBride, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuirre, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackie, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, William (fife, W.)
Macintosh, John P.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Maclennan, Robert



Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, Jol[...]


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Janner, Greville
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Doig, Peter
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)







Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James


Moyle, Roland
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tomney, Frank


Milley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Torney, Tom


Murray, Ronald King
Roper, John
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Varley, Eric G.


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, nt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, Arthur
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Richard, Ivor
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.


Clauses 75 and 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.


[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 77

APPLICATION TO REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATE

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—


The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 243.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

ACTION BY REGISTRAR ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 77

Division No. 156]
AYES
[1.45 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Astor, John
Batsford, Brian
Benyon, W.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 245.

Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom


Body, Richard
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nott, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Paisley, Mr Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Buck, Antony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Ouennell, Miss J. M.


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper, A. E.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Kaberry, Sir Donald



Cormack, Patrick
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St.John-Stevas, Norman


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Datkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigclor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lambton, Antony
Simeons, Charles


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Dixon, Piers
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Eden, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Fidler, Michael
Magginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marten, Neil
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tilney, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gorst, John
Money, Ernie
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, Selwyn
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth







Weatherill, Bernard
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher



White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Wiggin, Jerry
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Milian, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnett, Joel
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Rrightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Maliey, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt Hn. Fred


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cunningham G. (Islington S. W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R.dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davies Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sillars, James


Dolg, Peter
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Julius


Dormant, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford. E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Ford, Ben
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Varley, Eric G.







Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. John Golding and


Wells, Wiliiam (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY REGISTRAR

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—


The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 245.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[1.57 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Dean, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hordern, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dixon, Piers
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Astor, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Howell, David (Guildford)


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dykes, U.
Hunt, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Batsford, Brian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Iremonger, T. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Emery, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)


Benyon, W.
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biffen, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kaherry, Sir Donald


Biggs-Davison, John
Fidler, Michael
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kilfedder, James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kimball, Marcus


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. R.


Bowden, Andrew
Foster, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Fowler, Norman
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Knox, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Antony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buck, Anthony
Gorst, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Burden, F. A.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gray, Hamish
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Green, Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Carlisle, Mark
Grieve, Percy
McLaren, Martin


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley


Channon, Paul
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mather, Carol


Cockeram, Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Coombs, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cordle, John
Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger


Curran, Charles
Hiley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Money, Ernie


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector







Montgomery, Fergus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


More, Jasper
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mudd, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Neave, Airey
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Normanton, Tom
St. John-Stevgs, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sharples, Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Waddington, David


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walker, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Simeons, Charles
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Paisley, Mr Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Warren, Kenneth


Percival, Ian
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pounder, Rafton
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wilkinson, John


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis




Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Woodnutt, Mark



Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sutcliffe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter



Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Armstrong, Ernest
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Roy


Ashton, Joe
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hilton, W. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bidwell, Sydney
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Albert
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kinnock, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamond, James


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Latham, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Leonard, Dick


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Cronin, John
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brighside)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lipton, Marcus


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lomas, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Davidson, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hardy, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)







Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stallard, A. W.


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McElhone, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Strang, Gavin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mackie, John
Pentland, Norman
Swain, Thomas


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Maclennan, Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Probert, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Marquand, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Varley, Eric G.


Meacher, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mendelson, John
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Millan, Bruce
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Watkins, David


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wellbeloved, James


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roper, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Molloy, William
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Fit. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Murray, Ronald King
Sillars, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ogden, Eric

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Malley, Brian
Skinner, Dennis



Oram, Bert
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. John Golding and


Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Kenneth Marks


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 to 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [25th January].

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second time this day.

SWANSEA DOCKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: I was surprised, on Monday, 1st February, to hear the Secretary of State for Wales say that no inquiries had been made of him about the future potential of the South Wales ports, with special reference to Swansea.
I believe that the ports are one of the principal assets of the nation and should be listed in value to the nation. I believe that the reversal of this procedure, lack of inquiry, indicates a lack of liaison between Ministers of the Crown. Where Swansea and Wales are concerned, we cannot disregard the sea communications position in the Bristol Channel.
The future potential of the Port of Swansea is a matter of great importance to South Wales and, indeed, to the United Kingdom. The continued and increasing trade through the port must be maintained, and it is necessary to maintain a prosperous port in Swansea and a prosperous industrial hinterland behind the port, because each is interdependent on the other.
When we look for the ideal spot where sea traffic ends and overland traffic begins, we find that Swansea's position in economic, physical and commercial terms places it unquestionably in the top ten of the United Kingdom ports. Of all ports on a convergent point between sea and inland transport, none is better placed than the Port of Swansea.
The present success story of Swansea shows the willingness of all concerned to work with boldness and foresight for a policy adopted to secure a great future for the Port of Swansea. It is natural, therefore, to look for the Government's blessing and to hope that this will be forthcoming. Industrial relations in the port are good, and I say regretfully and sincerely that the only visible worsening agent to that is the Bill which we have been discussing tonight.
So we come to the bread-and-butter part of our national life and the part

that Swansea plays now and the port's potential, and if I commence with the present position and project the future potential I would say that 1970 was a record year for the port. The total traffic through the port exceeded eight million tons. If 1952 is taken as capacity, with traffic through the port at 11·6 million tons, in 1970, with more than eight million tons, the operation could be said to be 50 per cent. below capacity.
Yet, without extending the dock estate, there are potentially 12 new berths within the port, and this could provide employment for about 450 men. Vessels of up to 18,000 tons could use these facilities at all times, and with favourable tides vessels of 30,000 tons could use them. Within the dock boundaries there are about 70 acres of land available for marshalling cargo, and a further 35 acres will be available soon, and here I congratulate the British Transport Docks Board on its excellent management of the Port of Swansea.
I now come to two concepts where I think the potential of the Port of Swansea is something that should be assisted now to provide for the future. The first concept is that of a port of Europe, the so-called Europort. For several years there has been heavy insistence on the development of an east coast port, or ports, as so-called Euroports. It seems to me advisable that, having regard to all the circumstances which I shall mention later, one of these could, with profit to the country, be created in Swansea. If thought is given to the choice of Swansea, it will be seen from a lot of what I shall say latterly that the choice will be well made. Money would require to be spent, but in my view this would be a sound investment for the United Kingdom, Wales and Swansea, and I shall mention an example of how this induces speedy and heavy private capital investment in an area such as I shall describe.
The establishment of Swansea as a Europort could be done in two or possibly three stages. In stage one, there would be a modernisation programme and usage of the present facilities relating to sea, land and air transport. In stage two, there would be the building of a new dock on a site between the Neath River and the existing dock, the rebuilding of


Swansea airport, connecting up motorways and the rebuilding of the railway system. In stage three, there would be the building of a breakwater across Swan-sea Bay where large ships could be berthed in an artificial harbour.
Stage one would be an interim measure to accommodate present-day needs and to provide for container and roll-on-roll-off ships. It is in stage two that the speculative planning must be developed. It would be necessary to build a new dock between the Queens Dock and the Neath River for the new ships. Ships of the twenty-first century would require a dock such as this. The length of this dock would be 1,500 feet and the width would be 200 feet. The lock would have sliding casson gates and it would be possible for this dock to take the largest ships. The approach channel of 1,500 feet width and two miles in length would require to be dredged and this channel would be 10 fathoms deep at low water spring tides to enable ships drawing 55 feet to arrive and sail off for a full 24 hours a day.
The airport would require enlargement to transport away the goods and passengers to the rest of Britain and Europe, and air travel would be an ancillary service. The roadways in stage two would have to be those presently planned, and the railways, with freightliner terminals, would be speeding up transportation overland.
Next we have to consider the possibility of a Channel Tunnel being constructed. A hovertrain is another possibility. The journey from Swansea to the rest of Europe could become an overnight trip. All these things are realisable. It is amazing how the seeming fantasy of yesterday becomes the reality of today. In relation to the airport, this development would be a rewarding outcome for the great part that the City Council has played in the development up to date. The whole of stage two would require expert planning on a long-term basis to serve our country and the rest of Europe.
Stage three would be a progress development where big transports from overseas could lie moored in open water. These would be liquid carrier and bulk carrier ships, parent/barge ships, gas ships and similar large vessels.
If we look at the latitudinal and longitudinal position of Swansea, the city is nearer the Americas than is any other major West European port and certainly any British port. It is on a direct route to the U.S.A. and has deep-water entry from any part of the world. It is interesting to note that Swansea is nearer to New York, Cape Town and Suez than is London, Liverpool or Southampton. When one considers the congestion of Liverpool and London and the fact that recently in Swansea we have been taking overspill dock traffic from there, one sees that the point has stronger emphasis. From the marine angle, a convergent point of sea traffic, Swansea, means that it is the nearest point for continental Europe and for which ships can make.
In relation to inland transport, where the sea meets the land, the excellence of the geographical position of the port is again revealed. The city is approached by two main arterial road networks from the Midlands, with similar arterial and motorway roads from east and west which give access to the rest of Britain.
There are those in the House who know that rail communications lead everywhere from Swansea, with fast city-to-city services to London. If we assume that Birmingham is the centre of industrial Britain. Swansea is nearer the centre, give or take a mile, than many other towns. The distance from Swansea to Birmingham is 127 miles. The distance from London to Birmingham is 110 miles; from Southampton to Birmingham it is 128 miles; and from Liverpool to Birmingham it is 90 miles. Swansea is more accessible and nearer in steaming distance than other ports in the Bristol Channel. Ships can speed at 15 knots to Swansea. Bristol is 66 miles further on. Four hours and 24 minutes steaming time could gain another tide either way. Ship expenses are a matter for consideration.
There is a question of the inclusion or exclusion of Swansea as a maritime industrial development area. But in any case, exclusion is purely academic. In 1969 the then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs referred to the preservation of areas around ports suitable for inclusion in what was termed M.I.D.A.S. The prerequisite here was 5,000 acres of mostly flat land, a favourable hinterland, and a port with deep water access.


Swansea Bay has all these minimum criteria and presents a more favourable case as a maritime industrial development area than do ports in the upper Bristol Channel—and certainly much more favourable than Portbury or other developments in that area. With 6,000 acres between Kidwelly Flats and Llanelli, it follows that Swansea and the Swansea Bay area form a good port site suitable for modern facilities. We live in an age of large bulk carriers, and Swansea could he developed with these in mind.
The advantage in South-West Wales of relatively low-cost land is another factor. Industrial land in or near to large towns costs from £2,500 to £5,000 per acre freeehold. I contrast that with industrial land in the Midlands, which costs £10,000 per acre and upwards, and, as we know, the price in London is even higher—even more astronomic.
Development costs money, but spending must be weighed against the provision of national assets. I think that both the concepts to which I have referred, the Europort and M.I.D.A.S., are developments in the area which would be assets for the nation. I ask the Minister to consider the evidence. The national need must be provided for and, if it were assisted by the Government, Swansea could provide the need for a modern port complex. Today, the port is part of the nationalised Port Authority.
I come to the economics of the affair. It has been shown in Rotterdam and Antwerp that the creation of new port facilities is a prerequisite for large-scale development. The rapid industrial growth of these Continental ports followed decisions by the respective port authorities in 1947 and 1954 to expand their port facilities. So rapid is the effect of such decisions today that the mere announcement that Rotterdam intends to build a new oil channel costing 150 million guilders has resulted, within six months, in private industrial development decisions involving the total investment of 1,200 million guilders.
I hope that the Government will consider our part of the country when they come to the choice of site for a new port complex. Swansea has vision and is reaching out for the future. But the city and the port face the future with reality, and I have tried to back them in their

arguments for the Europort and M.I.D.A.S.
The potential of the port is there. All the arguments are based on reality. With Government interest and support and inclusion in the list of the nation's top 10 ports, Swansea could take her place at the centre of one of the trading crossroads of the world.

2.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has spoken powerfully on behalf of the great port which he helps to represent, and has outlined a most ambitious vision of its possible future. I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss one section of the ports industry which is so important to our country and to South Wales in particular, and I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office.
The port of Swansea is one of the group of South Wales ports owned and run successfully by the British Transport Docks Board. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a success story. I believe, too, that it has a bright future, but it is a future which, in my judgment, is founded not so much on the uncosted visions that the lion. Gentleman has outlined as on the concrete achievement of the port's management, its dock workers, and the many private firms which are investing in its future development.
I do not deny that Swansea has important advantages, but the fact that it is closer, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, to New York, Cape Town and Suez can hardly be counted among those advantages. A few score miles one way or the other make comparatively little difference when one is considering voyages of many thousands or tens of thousands of miles. Therefore, to claim that Swansea has a competitive advantage over Liverpool or London in shipping freight to North America or east of Suez makes no particular commercial sense, since it is virtually the same as claiming that Chelsea and Kensington are nearer to Cardiff than is Westminster. It is a marginal point.
What matters more than distance is the comparative speed and efficiency and the comparative costs of loading and unloading ships between one port and another. I would guess that a 1 per cent. cost


advantage in, for example, the speed of turning ships around would more than make up for many scores of miles of so-called distance advantage enjoyed by one port over another.
But I do not want to dampen the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, although I noticed that he carefully refrained from putting any costs to his ambitious schemes. My preference is for the sound and sensible policies of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Transport Industries and the Secretary of State for Wales, which are admirably designed to provide Swansea with what it most needs—confidence and competitiveness. The confidence is already apparent and it is based not on dreams but on facts.
Currently, Swansea is handling some eight million tons of cargo per year, including over five million tons of petroleum products, most of which are shipped from the B.P. refinery, and over one million tons of anthracite coke.

Mr. McBride: I agree that the confidence and the ability are there, but one plans by standing back and seeing that something is needed for the future. That would need to be costed, but if we are to create a new society that would be one of the preliminaries.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to some of the future plans in a moment. The financial results at Swansea are also better than in most British ports. Its net surpluses have risen over the years to some £72,000 in 1969, and the results for 1970 are expected to be much the same, which is a healthy indication in a year which, due to last summer's dock strike and strikes in other industries surrounding the docks, was not generally a good year for the ports as a whole.
As the hon. Gentleman said, labour relations are good, and this, too, is a favourable portent for Swansea's future. I gladly pay a tribute here to the contributions of the Port Director and his staff and of the trade unions in the port.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman made a broadcast today in which he said, among other things, that there were no plans on the part of the Secretary of State for Swansea's future. I must disabuse him of this idea: he could not be more wrong. Take industry, for example. Around Swansea Bay, a great deal of

capital investment has already been put in by the British Steel Corporation, B.P. Chemicals, the Ford Motor Company, International Nickel, A.L.C.O.A. and many other great growth companies. In the port itself, more than £4 million has been invested in capital works in recent years, on such projects——

Mr. McBride: Mr. McBride rose——

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he must not interrupt.

Mr. McBride: My mention of there being no plans related to any developments in relation to the concept of which I spoke.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have that clarification. Then there is the reconstruction of the West Pier, the Eastern breakwater and the new road facilities. The future investment programme of the British Transport Docks Board provides for a further £3·5 million on the extension of wharves, the renewal of cranes and fork-lift trucks and the modernisation of sheds and workshops over the next few years.
To put figures to it, in 1971 new investment will amount to £609,000. The projected figures for 1972, 1973 and 1974 are £479,000, £786,000 and £920,000. These are my right hon. Friends' projected plans for the growth of this port. Against this background I was surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman in his radio broadcast had spoken of "neglect."
The future plans for Swansea are most encouraging. It would be wrong for me to describe in any detail the progress of confidential commercial negotiations, but I can say that discussions are proceeding between the British Transport Docks Board and the British Steel Corporation with a view to improving and expanding the tin plate exporting business. Petroleum exports, too, are growing nicely. Future prospects look good. The recently inaugurated roll-on-roll-off service to Cork is another success story. I am hopeful that the operators will be attracted to run new services to France and to Spain. Passenger traffic passing through the port has risen from about 4,000 in 1963 to the present figure of over 150,000 passengers a year.
Road access is a problem at most of our ports, but, thanks in large measure


to the efforts of my right hon. Friends, ambitious plans for further improvements are already in hand. By the end of this year the M.4 will be completed as far as Newport. There are firm plans to extend it to beyond Bridgend. The Pyle by-pass is in the programme, so that by about 1976, looking to the future, virtually the whole of the A.48 between Cardiff and Swansea will be dual carriageway. Meanwhile, by the end of this year the current major bottleneck in the centre of Cardiff will have been relieved by the completion of the Eastern Avenue scheme.
As regards traffic to the Midlands—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham—the last stage of the new Midlands road linking the M.5 and the Ross Spur with the M.4 at Newport is under construction. This means that by next year there will be a dual-carriage road all the way between Birmingham and Newport, and this will link with the A.48. This road has already been completed as far as the Usk. The dualling of parts of the A.465–the Heads of the Valleys road—is being extended towards Swansea with the construction of the Glyn Neath bypass. A further length of new road is to be provided between Aberdulais and Llandarcy.
For all these reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will agree that, far from there being neglect or a lack of plans, there is abundant evidence of the Government's care for the future of the port of Swansea and of South Wales generally.
I am aware that a number of South-Wales Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have expressed misgivings about the effect on the South Wales ports of the Government's decision last November not to withhold approval under Section 9 of the Harbours Act for the Port of Bristol's proposal for a new West Dock. The hon. Member has been frequently on record in criticism of that decision.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman, because it is relevant to this debate, that this decision was made after the most careful examination of the submissions made by Bristol and of the comments and recommendations made by the National Ports Council, which had considered the area on both sides of the Channel as a

whole and which is the Government's statutory adviser in matters of this kind. The Government were satisfied that the commercial prospects for the proposed new dock at Bristol offered satisfactory expectations that an adequate return would be achieved on the capital invested. Taking into account the cost of the scheme, which was less than that of its two predecessors, and the prospects of increased trade and revenue for the Port of Bristol, there was no reason whatsoever why Section 9 approval should have been withheld. Indeed, it would have been quite wrong for us to prevent Bristol's investing what, after all, is its own money, at its own risk, in its own port development.
Here let me emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that in this matter of submitting proposals for port development projects there can be no question of Government direction of trade or direction of ports. If any port can produce a good case which satisfies the detailed scrutiny to which it is subjected by the National Ports Council and by my Department, there is no reason for the Government to withhold their approval on the ground that some sort of similar development might be undertaken at another port. I should tell the hon. Gentleman here that, in fact, no other port, and certainly not Swansea, has submitted any such proposals for consideration.
Therefore, I see no reason why the construction of the West Dock at Bristol, which is a natural development, bearing in mind the decision to close the Bristol City docks over a period and to concentrate dock development nearer the sea, should adversely affect the prospects of the South Wales ports in general or of Swansea in particular.
The traffic of Bristol, on the one hand, and of the South Wales ports, on the other, are in many respects complementary. Swansea handles mainly oil, coal, iron and steel, tin plate and non-ferreous ores. Bristol's principal cargoes include grain, feedingstuffs, molasses, fertilisers, wood pulp and chemicals, though it handles considerable quantities of petroleum products as well.
There is no reason I can see why development on both sides of the Bristol Channel should not continue to progress


in a similarly complementary fashion. But it would be wrong, both from the point of view of the ports themselves and from the point of view of the national interest, to attempt to put an artificial brake on healthy competition. Indeed, if our ports of the future are to be prosperous, financially stable and forward-looking, the spur of competition is needed as much in the ports industry as in our industry and commerce as a whole.
I know that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed when the British Transport Docks Board decided not to oppose Bristol's Private Bill which will give powers to construct the West Dock. I found his reaction—I must tell him—somewhat surprising. The British Transport Docks Board is the owner of Swansea Docks. He has himself paid tribute to its effective management of it. The British Transport Docks Board, as the custodian and, I believe, the best judge of Swansea Docks' interests and future, having given the most careful thought to the Bristol Bill, came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to

oppose it. Its decision was clear, and, in my view, it was right.
I remind the hon. Gentleman, also, that the British Transport Docks Board was not alone in thinking that it would be wrong for South Wales' interests to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the West Dock scheme or to drum up a scare story that somehow it represents a threat to the trade of the Welsh ports. The hon. Gentleman may have read the letter written by Professor Hallett of the University College of Cardiff last November to the Western Mail. He said:
I welcome the decision to allow Bristol Corporation to proceed with the plan, provided it bears the full cost"——

The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Three o'clock.